GMC suspends Nigel Speight

[Chrisb]

Interesting to see this quote from Wiki. Clearly a lot has changed since those days.

Sir Liam Donaldson, the then Chief Medical Officer, published a report titled Good doctors, safer patients, which appeared in 2006.[55] Donaldson echoed concerns about GMC FTP procedures and other functions of the Council. In his view, complaints were dealt with in a haphazard manner, the GMC caused distress to doctors over trivial complaints while tolerating poor practice in other cases. He accused the Council of being "secretive, tolerant of sub-standard practice and dominated by the professional interest, rather than that of the patient". Former President of the General Medical Council, Sir Donald Irvine, called for the current Council to be disbanded and re-formed with new members.[56]

 

[Seven7]

For those of you that thought the days were changing and worst was behind, think again. The war just started and how the ME associations respond to this will send a message. If we let it happen, we will end up like the lyme people.

So ALL ME associations from all countries, media and a heavy duty campaign has to be made to make an example. If we loose this case, braze yourself to be put back another 20 years.

This is politically important people to advance the field.

 

[Large Donner]

I'm rather confused about this, I thought he was a retired pediatrician who acted as a medical adviser etc for the ME Ass. and some other organisations as well as giving some lectures?

I suppose he held onto his registration with the GMC then and therefore they can stick their noses into his business?

However, as a qualified medical doctor its impossible for anyone to take your degree away even if you get struck off.

Unless he still makes a living seeing patients then why doesn't he just continue lecturing and advising. For heavens sakes how can we be in a situation whereby Phil Parker can work in the field of ME but a qualified well researched doctor cannot albeit Parker is not governed by the GMC.

Whatever one thinks of Andrew Wakefield he had his GMC licence stripped but he still lectures.

I just don't get how the GMC has also ruled that he must not treat or deal with anyone with ME but he must keep a log of potential cases and refer anyone on with potential ME to another pediatrician. How the hell does he come to such a conclusion without investigating them diagnostically?

Not only is it such a warped judgement that he must refer on, but the lunacy is in the fact that he must refer onto a pediatrician, and ......ANY PEDIATRICIAN, not even one whom has any knowledge of ME. Whats so glaring stupid is the fact that they have not ruled that he should refer onto an immunologist or a neurologist despite the UK being a signatory to the WHO coding on ME and the DOH acceptance that ME is a neurological condition.

How irresponsible is that, when considering the symptoms of ME, which he is not allowed to acknowledge under this ruling, must go through a process of exclusion for other conditions some of which may need immediate attention.

So a child comes in and may have ME, Dr Speight must act its like the disease that must not be uttered, something like the name of the "Scottish play", then he must send this sick child and their family back into the NHS system whereby they will probably wait a further 6 weeks to see a second pediatrician, who may or may not have a clue about ME.

Clear off to the US Dr Speight and get involved in research and treatment.

You just couldn't make this **** up!!

 

[Chrisb]

He could always refer them to the Nuffield Professor of Child Health at the UCL Institute of Child Health, part of Great Ormond St Hospital This would ensure proper compliance with the order as Professor Terence Stephenson, for it is he, is Chaiman of the Council of the GMC.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

There is one potential good that could come out of this awful situation - the GMC will have to examine the current evidence re. biological versus the BPS model. And we know that the BPS model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[JoanDublin]

I dont think Dr. Speight would like to see the details of the case on the internet again. It might damage any appeal he is considering

(Moderator Note: Content has been removed)

 

[Chrisb]

There is one potential good that could come out of this awful situation - the GMC will have to examine the current evidence re. biological versus the BPS model. And we know that the BPS model doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It would be pleasing to believe that this is how matters would proceed but it seems unlikely.

It seems to me that there are two issues involved here.

One involves the issues of the particular case, which might involve endangering patient interests, as well as the personal interest of Dr Speight. It would probably be best to avoid discussion of these too closely if that is what Dr Speight wishes.

There remain however the general issues involved. We need not be too squeamish about protecting our interests here. Look at the recent case of Dr Waney Squier, struck off in March. This decision provoked a letter to the Guardian signed by Michael Mansfield, Clive Stafford Smith and a host of others. I think it can be assumed that they have a sound grasp of how to further a case and know what is appropriate. This is the link to the letter

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...n-inquisition-by-striking-off-dr-waney-squier

In many ways it could be taken that we are the real target of this action by the GMC and that Dr Speight is merely the unfortunate collateral damage.

 

[Invisible Woman]

I won't post the full details, since Dr Speight asked for them to be taken down (although now that the case has been heard, perhaps it would OK to put them online?)

Please don't, the GMC hasn't heard his case yet.

Charles Shepherd below quoting Dr Speight's words:

I am sorry to have to tell you of the result of my hearing before an Interim Orders Tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on 20 April 2016.

So my understanding that this is an interim measure possibly until the GMC case is heard/deliberated.

While trying to support this wonderful doctor, let's not be hasty & do anything that might undermine his case with the GMC when it eventually comes up.

ETA to say that the 2nd quote was Charles Shepherd quoting Dr Speight.

(Moderator Note: Content has been removed)

 

[JoanDublin]

The details already posted above are too identifying and could cause harm to any appeal. I think they should be removed in Dr. Speights best interests.

(Moderator Note: Content has been removed)

 

[Hip]

Please don't, the GMC hasn't heard his case yet.

I won't post them, but I just wanted to provide an reasonably anonymized outline of the situation, so that those reading this thread have some idea of the nature of the events.


(Moderator Note: Content has been removed)

 

[Sasha]

@Hip, I think you should remove those details while you're waiting for advice. We don't want to harm Dr Speight's case.

(Moderator Note: Content has been removed)

 

[Sasha]

I'm rather confused about this, I thought he was a retired pediatrician who acted as a medical adviser etc for the ME ass and some other organisations as well as giving some lectures?

I suppose he held onto is registration with the GMC then and therefore they can stick there nose into his business?

However, as a qualified medical doctor its impossible for anyone to take your degree away even if you get struck off.

Unless he still makes a living seeing patients then why doesn't he just continue lecturing and advising.

There's an article about the situation on #MEAction:

http://www.meaction.net/2016/04/23/gmc-limits-dr-nigel-speights-license-charities-fight-back/

It says he's retired but does locum work.

 

[Hip]

@Sasha
I have significantly further anonymized them, so hopefully they will be pretty innocuous now.

 

[Sasha]

@Sasha
I have significantly further anonymized them, so hopefully they will be pretty innocuous now.

But you mention someone by name in this post:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/gmc-suspends-nigel-speight.44204/page-4#post-719115

Sorry, I've only had time to skim this thread but I thought that was the one that was concerning people.

 

[Undisclosed]

@Sasha
I have significantly further anonymized them, so hopefully they will be pretty innocuous now.

Let's err on the side of caution. When the letter he wrote was posted here, he specifically asked me to remove all traces of it from our website. I did. So really, it's probably best to maintain his privacy by not referring to the contents at all.

 

[Hip]

Let's err on the side of caution.

Fair enough.

Though it would be great to get the views of @charles shepherd on this, if we can post an anonymized outline of the events that led to the GMC suspending Dr Nigel Speight. This is of significant interest to the wider ME/CFS community.

To me it seems like psychobabble psychologists have once again succeeded in destroying the good work of those medical professional who hold a biomedical view of ME/CFS, but we have to remain silent.

 

[Undisclosed]

Fair enough.

Though it would be great to get the views of @charles shepherd on this, if we can post an anonymized outline of the events that led to the GMC suspending Dr Nigel Speight. This is of significant interest to the wider ME/CFS community.

Anything written in the letter was not meant for public viewing and we have already removed a post on this thread discussing the contents of this letter. Some of the events were in this letter and he asked that it remain private.

Dr Speight wrote in a letter after the GMC hearing:

I am sorry to have to tell you of the result of my hearing before an Interim Orders Tribunal of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on 20 April 2016. Most of you will be familiar with the sequence of events that led up to this case and the current GMC investigation.

This is referring to him trying to help a patient and family and some complaints were sent to the GMC. That information has always been out there and most are aware of the events.

 

[Hip]

This is referring to him trying to help a patient and family and some complaints were sent to the GMC. That information has always been out there and most are aware of the events

When Dr Speight says "most of you will be familiar with the sequence of events that led up to this case and the current GMC investigation", isn't he just referring to his friends and colleagues, who may have been privy to the details?

As far I am aware, the ME/CFS community's knowledge of the story behind this GMC hearing came from Dr Speight's letter to some of his colleagues, which was without his knowledge posted temporarily on this forum and elsewhere, and then quickly taken down at his request. So those like myself who saw the letter know the background; but I am guessing that most people probably don't know the details.

I am not of course suggesting that we do anything against Dr Speight's wishes, or anything that might jeopardize his situation. But it is frustrating to have to remain silent in the face of an enormous injustice.

 

[Undisclosed]

Put it this way @Hip -- Could you please drop it.

Dr Speight requested that the contents of that letter (regarding the charges against him) be removed and we are going to honour that request at the present time too. If he had wanted the details discussed, he would have said something in his recent letter. He did not. I think he is choosing not to discuss the case and has his reasons. I think we should respect his silence on the matter and respect his privacy.

 

[Hip]

I am not in any way disagreeing with you and your moderation decisions here, @Kina. I agree with them. So that issue is closed, and not the subject of discussion.


However, as a separate issue, I think everyone who is involved in the long-standing struggle to take ME/CFS out of the grip of the psychologists and into the hands of biomedical research and treatment will see the present events as a slip backwards. So I am just pointing out the frustrations of the situation — frustrations which I am sure you share too. I for one don't want to just sit here and do nothing. But just what we can do in this situation is unclear.