Invest in ME Conference 12: First Class in Every Way
OverTheHills wraps up our series of articles on this year's 12th Invest in ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London with some reflections on her experience as a patient attending the conference for the first time.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Cort, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Hi taniaaust,

    Thanks and your letter will be included.

    Sorry if I have been a little quiet here recently. I have been helping with the production of the defence papers and also with other letters and counter-complaints.

    Hopefully all will be revealed soon. I hope you understand that most of the stuff being produced at the moment has to remain confidential for the time being.

    I want to thank you for your continuing support - it is helping us a lot.

    I attach below a copy of the most recent post to the support myhill website:

    Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS, Upper Weston, Llangunllo, Knighton, Powys, Wales, UK LD7 1SL
    Tel: 01547550331 Fax: 01547550339 E-mail: Website:
    22nd August 2010

    Dear All

    It has been clear to me that the cases the GMC have been holding against me are not based on
    fact. At my IOP Hearing on 29 April 2010 I demonstrated that the Partners practise had told
    untruths to the GMC but the GMC did not seem to mind about that. They have made no attempt
    to correct these lies. I think I now know why.

    The apparent sequence of events that resulted in me facing an IOP were detailed in the Expert
    Witness report that I received 3 days before my Hearing. It contained a whole series of
    inaccuracies which I did not have time to explore and correct before my Hearing. So in a Data
    Protection Act search subsequently I asked for the letter of instruction from the GMC legal
    team to the Expert Witness. This was with-held from me by the Information Access Team. So I
    asked again. This letter appeared in my office last week with a second letter containing two
    apologies from the GMC Information Access Officer Julian Graves.

    “I apologise for the length of time it has taken me to respond to you on this matter”

    “Having reviewed the original disclosure I can confirm that there are a number of documents
    that should have been provided to you in response to your subject access request. I am sorry
    we did not do so”

    Actually there were a further 79 pages that the GMC had with held.

    Contained within that bundle was indeed the letter of instruction from a member of the GMC legal team
    to the Expert Witness. The following are verbatim extracts from that letter, with typos:

    “In this letter I set out some instructions for you to provide your opinion on whether the doctor’s actions
    and treatment fell short of what could be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Anaesthetic
    and if so in what ways and to what extent” (sic).

    “........if the facts alleged against Dr Myhill are proved, his fitness to practise is impaired to a degree
    that would justify action on his registration.......

    So the GMC believe I am a male consultant anaesthetic and this briefing was sent not just to the Expert
    Witness but also to the IOP. Apparently I was judged that day on being a “male consultant anaesthetic”.

    This is another example of how the GMC have broken their own procedures – the prosecution team and
    the adjudication team were briefed by the same person. The GMC have assured me in the past that these
    two teams are completely separate – it appears they are not. Indeed in correspondence they all refer to
    each other by first name terms.

    An IOP hearing is not called to establish the facts of a case, but rather simply to impose ‘temporary’
    sanctions designed to protect the public on the suspicion of wrongdoing. The inaccuracies and factual
    untruths in this letter of instruction of the 18th March 2010 has resulted in severe consequences both for
    myself and many of my patients because not one of the Case Examiner, Expert Witness Professor
    Bouloux, GMC prosecutor Gary Summers or the IOP took the time to check the (inaccurate) source
    material. There was, therefore, an unbroken chain of consequences from the inaccuracies coming from
    the GMC legal department through to the severe sanctions placed on my medical practice by the IOP.
    I have pointed out all the inaccuracies, in detail together with many other concerns, to Mr Neil Marshall
    GMC Assistant Registrar over the course of six letters. He has not indicated any concern with any of the
    issues raised, nor has he taken any action.

    The GMC have to review my case before the end of October 2010. This will either take the form of a
    further IOP Hearing or a full Fitness to Practise Hearing. I shall be conducting my own defence, but I
    have had wonderful help from patients who have employed their considerable skills in bringing my case

    We are preparing all the lines of argument, fully referenced, which show the inaccuracies upheld by the
    GMC, how they have broken their own procedures and acted, we believe, illegally.

    We have collected together all the 800 letters received before the April IOP, the 4127 signatures and
    comments from the on line petition and the 2,300 facebook members and entries together with the
    many letters received subsequently and put them on a large database. I have been accused of not
    following NICE Guidelines. So this database will form the basis of patient “counter examples”, ie
    examples of people who have not been helped by NICE Guidelines but have been helped by the
    information in my website or following consultation with me.

    This data base is being put together by a student Robert Segrott and I am grateful to the many people
    who have, unsolicited, sent me donations to cover the cost of employing Robert and all the other
    unforeseen expenses.

    Thank you all so very much for the unwavering support I have received. If I have an evening when I
    feel a bit down I just have to spend a few minutes on Facebook or the on-line petition or go through
    some of the magnificent letters that you have all sent to the GMC to feel immediately cheered up and
    fired up to continue the fight!

    Best wishes to you all

    (A female, General Practitioner)


    There were more inaccuracies in the letter of instruction which were of a nature other than 'mere' factually incorrectness regarding Sarah's gender and area of practice. These further errors are in some ways more significant as they concerned the facts that the case were decided upon.

    Best to all,
  2. Min

    Min Guest

    It is deeply suspicious and perhaps deliberate that Dr Myhill was not given time to correct and explore the huge number of innacuracies, and that 79 pages were withheld. Her treatment by the GMC has been more than unfair.
  3. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Agreed Min.

    On a different point, the NICE guidelines formed part of the prosecution against Dr Myhill.

    The following was received from NICE regarding the applicability of their guidelines. Another letter of the same type was received from the Chief Medical Officer. Both of these will be placed in the primary Defence Document being prepared for the review of the IOP decision.

    Thank you for contacting the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). I am sorry for the delay in responding to your enquiry.

    NICE clinical guidelines are recommendations about the treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions in the NHS in England and Wales. Clinical guidelines represent the view of NICE, and are arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. Healthcare professionals are expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. However, the guidance does not override the individual responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or guardian or carer, and informed by the summary of product characteristics of any drugs they are considering.

    Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners and/or providers. Commissioners and providers are reminded that it is their responsibility to implement the guidance, in their local context, in light of their duties to avoid unlawful discrimination and to have regard to promoting equality of opportunity. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.

    With regards to technology appraisal guidance, this type of guidance contains recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS. The NHS is legally obliged to fund and resource medicines and treatments recommended by NICE's technology appraisals, usually within 3 months of guidance being published.

    Information about what NHS organisations are expected to do following publication of our guidance can be found on our website via the page below:

    We are unable to comment on the legal position regarding implementation of our guidelines as this is outside of our remit.

    Kind regards


    It is important to emphasise that the National Institute for Health and
    Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines are just that – guidelines for
    healthcare professionals. The guideline emphasises a collaborative
    relationship between clinician and patient and recognises there is no one
    form of treatment to suit every patient but that what is needed is a
    personalised, holistic approach.

    Once NICE guidance is published, health professionals (and the
    organisations who employ them) are expected to take it fully into account
    when deciding what treatments to give people. However, NICE guidance
    does not replace the knowledge and skills of individual health professionals
    who treat patients; it is still up to them to make decisions about a particular
    patient in consultation with the patient and/or their guardian or carer when
    appropriate. Health professionals retain their independence to apply their
    clinical judgement in deciding which guidelines to use for the diagnosis and treatment of their patients.

    Kind regards,
  4. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    The GMC has received a slap on the wrist from the ICO. Here is the letter below.

    I am now investigating whether we can take this further in circumstances where the data holder is a repeat offender, as is the case with the GMC.

    Thanks for your continuing support.


    Mr J Graves
    Information Access Manager
    General Medical Council
    5th Floor
    St. James's Buildings 79 Oxford Street
    M1 6FQ

    7 August 2010

    Case Reference Number FS50319567

    Dear Mr Graves

    Complaint from Mr X

    I am writing to confirm that the Information Commissioner has received a complaint from Mr X stating that no response has been sent to an information request submitted to your organisation on 4 May 2010, which you have acknowledged. We enclose a copy of this request for your information.

    Any public authority in receipt of such a request is under a duty to respond within 20 working days of receipt. As it is the case that you have not responded but acknowledged receipt of the request, we would ask that you now respond within 10 working days of receipt of this letter. We should be grateful if you could also provide a copy of your response to this office.

    You should state whether or not the information is held in a recorded form. If it is held, you should either provide the information or issue a refusal notice in accordance with the requirements of section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act or regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations as appropriate. You can find more information on refusal notices contained in the guidance issued by the Commissioner which is available at:

    Finally you should be aware that the Information Commissioner often receives requests for copies of the letters we send and receive when dealing with casework. Not only are we obliged to deal with these in accordance with the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the FoIA), it is in the public interest that we are open, transparent and accountable for the work that we do.

    However, whilst we want to disclose as much information as we reasonably can, there will be occasions where full disclosure would be wrong. It is also important that the disclosures we make do not undermine the confidence and trust in the Commissioner of those who correspond with him.

    When you reply to this letter, I would be grateful if you would indicate whether any of the information you provide in connection with this matter is confidential, or for any other reason should not be disclosed to anyone who requests it. I should make clear that simply preferring that the information is withheld may not be enough to prevent disclosure. You should have a good reason why this information should not be disclosed to anyone else and explain this to us clearly and fully.

    For further advice on how to deal with information requests, please visit our website at or call our helpline on 0303 123 1113.

    When contacting us about this matter, please quote the case reference number from the top of this letter.

    Yours sincerely,

    Kate Holl
    Case Officer
    Access Rights Team
    First Contact Group
  5. Supporters of Dr Myhill

    Supporters of Dr Myhill Guest

    Please see the new thread for the new IOP due on 7 October. It's called VERY IMPORTANT NEWS REGARDING DR MYHILL AND THE GMC


  6. lpgautogas


    Nice post...Thank you very much!!......[​IMG]
  7. jace

    jace Off the fence


See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page