- Messages
- 165
Further to this matter I attach a copy of a follow up letter I have written.
If anyone has contacts in the media please pass on!
23 May 2011
Rt Hon John Bercow,
House of Commons,
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear John,
CONCERNS ABOUT THE SREEENING OF COMPLAINTS AT THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Thank you very much for your reply of 18 May 2011 and the enclosed letter from Mr Paul Philip of the GMC.
As you say his answer sheds little light on my concern or indeed my specific question. Mr Philip has simply not answered the question posed to him, which concerned the efficacy of GMC screening procedures regarding complaints made against practising Doctors.
Mr Philip mentions other serious charges that Dr Myhill faces. I am well aware that Dr Myhill faces other serious charges and as we all know facing charges is not the same as being found guilty of the same. Dr Myhill has been in this position with the GMC many times before and each time the charges have been dropped with no case to answer. However, my query did not address the existence, or indeed validity, of those other charges. I was concerned with one, and only one, particular issue raised by the GMC at an Interim Orders Panel (IOP) Hearing. Mr Philip has chosen to answer a question he was not asked.
In addition Mr Philip states that he does not wish to breach Dr Myhills confidentiality. Again, this is an odd, and dare I say, irrelevant, line of argument. Dr Myhill requested that all her Hearings should be in public, a very unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, move by a doctor facing an IOP Hearing. I am not asking questions about anything which is not already in the public domain. By answering my question, Mr Philip will be breaching no ones, least of all Dr Myhills, confidentiality.
In fact this point of confidentiality is all the more ironic given that a key feature of this case is the breach by the GMC of the confidentiality of a severely ill patient at the centre of one complaint made against Dr Myhill.
So, Mr Philips two key points, that of the other serious charges faced by Dr Myhill and concerns about her confidentiality, evidently have no bearing on his ability to answer my original question.
Therefore, without wishing to be a nuisance, I am forced to request that you, please, press Mr Philip for a substantive answer on this point. For the avoidance of doubt I re-state my request as follows, taken verbatim from my previous letter on this matter addressed to yourself:
At a recent Interim Orders Panel, the GMC lodged a complaint against Dr Myhill concerning her acting as a midwife, a medical practice which they considered put Dr Myhill outwith her permitted, and at that time, restricted medical licence.
The complaint was made anonymously but included a weblink which was as follows:
http://www.supportdrmyhill.co.uk/impromptu_midwife.html
You will notice that I am quoted near the bottom of this page and if you care to click on the link to Rosemary and her babies, you will see that in fact Dr Myhill delivered some rather fine piglets! I think I am right in saying that the GMCs regulatory powers do not extend to the safe delivery of porcine offspring but I await to be corrected.
My concern is that the GMC did not follow its own procedures for checking that complaints are at least worthy of commencing an investigation. The following wording is taken from
http://www.gmcuk.org/concerns/the_investigation_process/investigating_concerns.aspp
At an early stage we will decide whether there are issues which we need to investigate further, and if so, what form the investigation should take.
It is fairly self evident, I would contend, that not one single officer at the GMC clicked on the mentioned weblink and saw the fetching piglets in all their glory. This is a very serious issue because if the GMC can accept complaints such as these then what other spurious complaints are being accepted prima facie by their officers?
The questions then can be put fairly simply:
1--What if any procedures did the GMC follow in bringing to a full session of an Interim Orders Panel Hearing this complaint against Dr Myhill about her delivery of piglets?
2Is Mr Philip satisfied that the GMC followed proper procedures in this particular complaint?
3Have any steps been taken internally at the GMC to ensure that such ridiculous charges are never brought before an IOP Hearing again?
I am truly sorry to have to return to this issue. I had hoped that Mr Philip would have given me a substantive answer. There are literally thousands of people on Dr Myhills facebook support group, and other support groups, who would like to know the answers to these questions and it would be somewhat wasteful of everyones time if each and every one of those thousands of supporters had to write to their own MPs in a similar vein in order to illicit a response from Mr Philip. However, Mr Philip is aware that this kind of exercise has been done in the past, when thousands of letters, emails and comments of support were sent to the first IOP Hearing, and if necessary this will be done in the future.
I appreciate you are an extremely busy man but I would very much appreciate you trying for me on this issue one more time. Once again in the interests of openness I have copied this letter to the Chief Executive of the GMC.
Yours sincerely,
Cc Niall Dickson,
Chief Executive
General Medical Council
Regent's Place,
350 Euston Road,
London NW1 3JN.
If anyone has contacts in the media please pass on!
23 May 2011
Rt Hon John Bercow,
House of Commons,
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear John,
CONCERNS ABOUT THE SREEENING OF COMPLAINTS AT THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
Thank you very much for your reply of 18 May 2011 and the enclosed letter from Mr Paul Philip of the GMC.
As you say his answer sheds little light on my concern or indeed my specific question. Mr Philip has simply not answered the question posed to him, which concerned the efficacy of GMC screening procedures regarding complaints made against practising Doctors.
Mr Philip mentions other serious charges that Dr Myhill faces. I am well aware that Dr Myhill faces other serious charges and as we all know facing charges is not the same as being found guilty of the same. Dr Myhill has been in this position with the GMC many times before and each time the charges have been dropped with no case to answer. However, my query did not address the existence, or indeed validity, of those other charges. I was concerned with one, and only one, particular issue raised by the GMC at an Interim Orders Panel (IOP) Hearing. Mr Philip has chosen to answer a question he was not asked.
In addition Mr Philip states that he does not wish to breach Dr Myhills confidentiality. Again, this is an odd, and dare I say, irrelevant, line of argument. Dr Myhill requested that all her Hearings should be in public, a very unusual, and perhaps unprecedented, move by a doctor facing an IOP Hearing. I am not asking questions about anything which is not already in the public domain. By answering my question, Mr Philip will be breaching no ones, least of all Dr Myhills, confidentiality.
In fact this point of confidentiality is all the more ironic given that a key feature of this case is the breach by the GMC of the confidentiality of a severely ill patient at the centre of one complaint made against Dr Myhill.
So, Mr Philips two key points, that of the other serious charges faced by Dr Myhill and concerns about her confidentiality, evidently have no bearing on his ability to answer my original question.
Therefore, without wishing to be a nuisance, I am forced to request that you, please, press Mr Philip for a substantive answer on this point. For the avoidance of doubt I re-state my request as follows, taken verbatim from my previous letter on this matter addressed to yourself:
At a recent Interim Orders Panel, the GMC lodged a complaint against Dr Myhill concerning her acting as a midwife, a medical practice which they considered put Dr Myhill outwith her permitted, and at that time, restricted medical licence.
The complaint was made anonymously but included a weblink which was as follows:
http://www.supportdrmyhill.co.uk/impromptu_midwife.html
You will notice that I am quoted near the bottom of this page and if you care to click on the link to Rosemary and her babies, you will see that in fact Dr Myhill delivered some rather fine piglets! I think I am right in saying that the GMCs regulatory powers do not extend to the safe delivery of porcine offspring but I await to be corrected.
My concern is that the GMC did not follow its own procedures for checking that complaints are at least worthy of commencing an investigation. The following wording is taken from
http://www.gmcuk.org/concerns/the_investigation_process/investigating_concerns.aspp
At an early stage we will decide whether there are issues which we need to investigate further, and if so, what form the investigation should take.
It is fairly self evident, I would contend, that not one single officer at the GMC clicked on the mentioned weblink and saw the fetching piglets in all their glory. This is a very serious issue because if the GMC can accept complaints such as these then what other spurious complaints are being accepted prima facie by their officers?
The questions then can be put fairly simply:
1--What if any procedures did the GMC follow in bringing to a full session of an Interim Orders Panel Hearing this complaint against Dr Myhill about her delivery of piglets?
2Is Mr Philip satisfied that the GMC followed proper procedures in this particular complaint?
3Have any steps been taken internally at the GMC to ensure that such ridiculous charges are never brought before an IOP Hearing again?
I am truly sorry to have to return to this issue. I had hoped that Mr Philip would have given me a substantive answer. There are literally thousands of people on Dr Myhills facebook support group, and other support groups, who would like to know the answers to these questions and it would be somewhat wasteful of everyones time if each and every one of those thousands of supporters had to write to their own MPs in a similar vein in order to illicit a response from Mr Philip. However, Mr Philip is aware that this kind of exercise has been done in the past, when thousands of letters, emails and comments of support were sent to the first IOP Hearing, and if necessary this will be done in the future.
I appreciate you are an extremely busy man but I would very much appreciate you trying for me on this issue one more time. Once again in the interests of openness I have copied this letter to the Chief Executive of the GMC.
Yours sincerely,
Cc Niall Dickson,
Chief Executive
General Medical Council
Regent's Place,
350 Euston Road,
London NW1 3JN.
