spindrift
Plays With Voodoo Dollies
- Messages
- 286
Grin, I hope so.
Dr MyHill's License in Jeopardy
- Thread starter Cort
- Start date
Grin, I hope so.
spindrift
Plays With Voodoo Dollies
- Messages
- 286
Restriction on licence, UGH!!!!!!
"Dr Myhill: The Panel has considered all the information presented. It has taken account of the submissions made on behalf of the GMC and those made on your behalf. On behalf of the GMC, Mr Summers referred to two complaints. The first complaint was made by a group of general ... See morepractitioners regarding your suggested management of a patient with a neurological disease. The second complaint related to the content of your website. Mr Summers submitted that an order for interim conditions was necessary in all the circumstances.
Mr Macdonald, on your behalf, submitted that no order was necessary and that the concerns raised were unfounded, particularly in light of the large number of testimonials, supportive of your practice. It has noted your evidence to the Panel that you deny the allegations, and has taken into account your concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the GMC's case.
The circumstances surrounding this case relate to concerns regarding your clinical and professional practice, and concerns regarding your website, your promotion of treatments and consequently your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence. At all times, a doctor is responsible for ensuring their own good medical practice, and it is their responsibility to practise safely and in accordance with the requisite guidance.
The Panel has determined that in accordance with Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, it is necessary for the protection of members of the public and in the public interest to make an order imposing the following interim conditions on your registration for a period of 18 months, with effect from today.
1. You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary;
2. Within 14 days of today's hearing you must ensure that in relation to your website, or any website relating to your medical practice or business, all pages, downloadable content, including documents, forum or discussion board content, or other references or online media relating to the following subjects must be removed:
a. The medical management of cases relating to cardiology, or cardiovascular disease including; chest pain due to ischaemic heart disease; acute coronary syndrome; heart failure; or pulmonary embolus;
b. The treatment of asthma;
c. The treatment, testing, identification, diagnosis or management of breast cancer;
d. The use of hormonal contraceptive medication;
e. The pharmacological management of primary or secondary prevention of vascular disease;
f. Any immunisation or vaccination;
3. You must obtain the approval of the GMC before accepting any post for which registration with the GMC is required;
4. You must inform the GMC if you apply for medical employment outside the UK;
5. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to the conditions, listed at 1 to 4 above:
a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake medical work; and
b. Any prospective employer or contracting body (at the time of application).
In reaching its decision the Panel first considered whether it was necessary for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest, or in your own interests to impose any interim order. It is not the Panel's purpose to test the veracity of any information put before it. It has reminded itself of the test it must apply and of its nature, function and powers, as well as its duty to consider each case on its individual merits. The Panel's function is not one of fact finding and the Panel must impose the order it determines necessary notwithstanding any potential for loss or hardship.
In considering the protection of members of the public and the public interest,
the Panel is concerned by the allegations made and is satisfied that, if substantiated, your actions could indicate a potentially serious limitation on your insight into your fitness to practise and the consequences of your actions, particularly for vulnerable people who may be accessing your website. As a consequence if the allegations are proven your behaviour could have an adverse effect on the confidence and trust that the members of the public are entitled to place in the profession and its practitioners.
The Panel was concerned that some of the information contained within your website may indicate that you are practising outwith your area of expertise and therefore are potentially putting patients at risk by providing misleading or inaccurate information. The Panel was also troubled that on the basis of your statement and evidence today, you may lack insight into the issues raised by the GMC. In considering the GMC's document Good Medical Practice the Panel has borne in mind that it is a fundamental Duty of a Doctor to recognise and work within the limits of your competence. Furthermore, the Panel notes that, as a doctor, if you publish information about your medical services you must make sure the information is factual and verifiable.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient information before it to indicate that there may be impairment of your fitness to practise and that such impairment may pose a real risk to members of the public, and may adversely affect the public interest. You are a registered medical practitioner and are expected to behave in a manner that justifies the public trust in the profession and its practitioners at all times.
Having determined that an interim order is necessary, the Panel then went on to consider if an interim order for conditions would be workable, practicable, sufficient and appropriate. In all the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that a restriction, by way of interim conditions, is appropriate and sufficient, to guard against the risk that your actions potentially have for patients, the public, and the public interest. The public interest includes not only upholding and declaring the appropriate standards of professional behaviour, but also maintaining trust in the profession. Trust is crucial to the doctor/patient relationship.
The Panel is required to consider for what duration an interim order is necessary. The Panel notes that there are a number of issues to investigate and that the GMC's final consideration of your case may take some time. Therefore, it is necessary to impose the above conditions on your registration for a period of 18 months. In doing so the Panel notes that the order will be reviewed within six months, or earlier should circumstances surrounding your case change.
The Panel has taken account of the issue of proportionality in that it must act in a way which is fair and reasonable. Whilst it notes that its order restricts your ability to practise medicine, the Panel has determined that, given the nature of this case, imposing conditions on your registration, at this time, is a necessary and proportionate response to the risks posed by you practicing medicine unrestricted.
Notification of this decision will be served upon you in accordance with the Medical Act 1983, as amended."
Mr Macdonald, on your behalf, submitted that no order was necessary and that the concerns raised were unfounded, particularly in light of the large number of testimonials, supportive of your practice. It has noted your evidence to the Panel that you deny the allegations, and has taken into account your concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the GMC's case.
The circumstances surrounding this case relate to concerns regarding your clinical and professional practice, and concerns regarding your website, your promotion of treatments and consequently your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence. At all times, a doctor is responsible for ensuring their own good medical practice, and it is their responsibility to practise safely and in accordance with the requisite guidance.
The Panel has determined that in accordance with Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983, as amended, it is necessary for the protection of members of the public and in the public interest to make an order imposing the following interim conditions on your registration for a period of 18 months, with effect from today.
1. You must not prescribe any prescription only medication, as detailed in the British National Formulary;
2. Within 14 days of today's hearing you must ensure that in relation to your website, or any website relating to your medical practice or business, all pages, downloadable content, including documents, forum or discussion board content, or other references or online media relating to the following subjects must be removed:
a. The medical management of cases relating to cardiology, or cardiovascular disease including; chest pain due to ischaemic heart disease; acute coronary syndrome; heart failure; or pulmonary embolus;
b. The treatment of asthma;
c. The treatment, testing, identification, diagnosis or management of breast cancer;
d. The use of hormonal contraceptive medication;
e. The pharmacological management of primary or secondary prevention of vascular disease;
f. Any immunisation or vaccination;
3. You must obtain the approval of the GMC before accepting any post for which registration with the GMC is required;
4. You must inform the GMC if you apply for medical employment outside the UK;
5. You must inform the following parties that your registration is subject to the conditions, listed at 1 to 4 above:
a. Any organisation or person employing or contracting with you to undertake medical work; and
b. Any prospective employer or contracting body (at the time of application).
In reaching its decision the Panel first considered whether it was necessary for the protection of members of the public, in the public interest, or in your own interests to impose any interim order. It is not the Panel's purpose to test the veracity of any information put before it. It has reminded itself of the test it must apply and of its nature, function and powers, as well as its duty to consider each case on its individual merits. The Panel's function is not one of fact finding and the Panel must impose the order it determines necessary notwithstanding any potential for loss or hardship.
In considering the protection of members of the public and the public interest,
the Panel is concerned by the allegations made and is satisfied that, if substantiated, your actions could indicate a potentially serious limitation on your insight into your fitness to practise and the consequences of your actions, particularly for vulnerable people who may be accessing your website. As a consequence if the allegations are proven your behaviour could have an adverse effect on the confidence and trust that the members of the public are entitled to place in the profession and its practitioners.
The Panel was concerned that some of the information contained within your website may indicate that you are practising outwith your area of expertise and therefore are potentially putting patients at risk by providing misleading or inaccurate information. The Panel was also troubled that on the basis of your statement and evidence today, you may lack insight into the issues raised by the GMC. In considering the GMC's document Good Medical Practice the Panel has borne in mind that it is a fundamental Duty of a Doctor to recognise and work within the limits of your competence. Furthermore, the Panel notes that, as a doctor, if you publish information about your medical services you must make sure the information is factual and verifiable.
Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient information before it to indicate that there may be impairment of your fitness to practise and that such impairment may pose a real risk to members of the public, and may adversely affect the public interest. You are a registered medical practitioner and are expected to behave in a manner that justifies the public trust in the profession and its practitioners at all times.
Having determined that an interim order is necessary, the Panel then went on to consider if an interim order for conditions would be workable, practicable, sufficient and appropriate. In all the circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that a restriction, by way of interim conditions, is appropriate and sufficient, to guard against the risk that your actions potentially have for patients, the public, and the public interest. The public interest includes not only upholding and declaring the appropriate standards of professional behaviour, but also maintaining trust in the profession. Trust is crucial to the doctor/patient relationship.
The Panel is required to consider for what duration an interim order is necessary. The Panel notes that there are a number of issues to investigate and that the GMC's final consideration of your case may take some time. Therefore, it is necessary to impose the above conditions on your registration for a period of 18 months. In doing so the Panel notes that the order will be reviewed within six months, or earlier should circumstances surrounding your case change.
The Panel has taken account of the issue of proportionality in that it must act in a way which is fair and reasonable. Whilst it notes that its order restricts your ability to practise medicine, the Panel has determined that, given the nature of this case, imposing conditions on your registration, at this time, is a necessary and proportionate response to the risks posed by you practicing medicine unrestricted.
Notification of this decision will be served upon you in accordance with the Medical Act 1983, as amended."
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Looks like very heavy restrictions.
pollycbr125
Senior Member
- Messages
- 353
- Location
- yorkshire
The Panel's function is not one of fact finding ???????? what is there bloody function then :Retro mad:
your website may indicate that you are practising outwith your area of expertise and therefore are potentially putting patients at risk by providing misleading or inaccurate information
The Panel was also troubled that on the basis of your statement and evidence today, you may lack insight into the issues raised by the GMC
the Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient information before it to indicate that there may be impairment of your fitness to practise and that such impairment may pose a real risk to members of the public, and may adversely affect the public interest.
I am surprised they didn't end with
"Therefore The Panel are satisfied that you may be a witch"
The Panel was also troubled that on the basis of your statement and evidence today, you may lack insight into the issues raised by the GMC
the Panel is satisfied that there is sufficient information before it to indicate that there may be impairment of your fitness to practise and that such impairment may pose a real risk to members of the public, and may adversely affect the public interest.
I am surprised they didn't end with
"Therefore The Panel are satisfied that you may be a witch"
- Messages
- 35
I can't believe this, people are going to relapse and become iller again, They do not care about the well being of patients and they just seem to have such extraordinary powers that they seem to be a law unto themselves.
. acting on an anonymous complaint from someone who has no understanding of the issues.
They can just do whatever they like regardless of the what those of us who have this condition say. Shocking
Is their anywhere else that will administer B 12 injections and magnesium.
. acting on an anonymous complaint from someone who has no understanding of the issues.
They can just do whatever they like regardless of the what those of us who have this condition say. Shocking
Is their anywhere else that will administer B 12 injections and magnesium.
pollycbr125
Senior Member
- Messages
- 353
- Location
- yorkshire
If Sarah is not allowed to prescribe now where does that leave her patients ? as patients will still need their medication prescribing . If they cant get prescriptions some folk could end up very sick . what have they put in place for these patients ?
- Messages
- 1
- Location
- Whitwick, Leics
Their function, apparently is to decide if suspension or restriction should be imposed while allegations are investigated - sort of "allegations have been made - if they were true, danger would exist, so we are imposing a restriction till we know if they are true or not". Sounds Looking-glass World, but I think that's the case.
Devastating for all concerned and it makes me think despite going through the motions this is the outcome they intended all along regardless of what she said in her defence and the statement is typical boll**ks speak. Sometimes in this country it does rather feel like all the power lies with the most amoebic, stunted intellects, I feel so sorry for Sarah.
Cort
Phoenix Rising Founder
- Messages
- 7,392
Haven't read all of it but at least regards the website - it appears that the CFS part will be left almost untouched???
Patients, no longer able to obtain their prescriptions from Sarah Myhill, may well seach online and source from outside the UK, without all the quality controls and checks that could have been provided by a UK GP and UK pharmacies.
Seems like the GMC has no idea of the desperate situation we are placed in by the conventional wisdom about our medical condition.
Seems like the GMC has no idea of the desperate situation we are placed in by the conventional wisdom about our medical condition.
Cort
Phoenix Rising Founder
- Messages
- 7,392
THe prescription restriction will, I imagine be brutal for her financially - who wants to see a doctor who cannot prescribe prescription drugs? It sounds like they could put her out of business.
They don't seem to mind her advice for CFS; its her advice on cardiac issues, breast cancer issues, etc. that they seem to be upset about. They feel she is 'outside her area of expertise' on those issues.
But why not allow her to prescribe to anybody - for 18 months! That seems like a big hit financially for her to me.....
Do any of the allegations state that she is improperly prescribing prescription drugs? That's not the issue is it?
They don't seem to mind her advice for CFS; its her advice on cardiac issues, breast cancer issues, etc. that they seem to be upset about. They feel she is 'outside her area of expertise' on those issues.
But why not allow her to prescribe to anybody - for 18 months! That seems like a big hit financially for her to me.....
Do any of the allegations state that she is improperly prescribing prescription drugs? That's not the issue is it?
R
Robin
Guest
I think (I'm not sure) what "non fact finding" means is that the burden of determining the medical science does not fall on the shoulders of the panel.
So, what I get is that they're not trying to determine if Myhill's protocol or treatment is efficacious. (That's how I'm reading it!) What they're doing is trying to figure out whether or not the physician is practicing within the scope of his/her specialty...
See? They're not making a value judgment on the information itself. It's more of a legal thing: " it is a fundamental Duty of a Doctor to recognise and work within the limits of your competence."
Then they go on to say they suspect the website material is what American's would say is outside the standard of care, or unverifiable:
Again, they're not saying whether or not it's not her website material is efficacious, it just has to be proven to be true. And, apparently, they ruled that a lot of her material wasn't verifiable, and they went on to list what she had to pull from her website.
It looks like she's still allowed to see patients and treat them, with this condition:
I have no idea what this means -- are "prescription" and "medication" two different things in the UK? Or are they saying she can't prescribe off label? She could probably still give people their B12 and magnesium (in the US that stuff is not regulated like pharmaceuticals are).
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Sounds like a good run down robin. Thanks.
Chris
Senior Member
- Messages
- 845
- Location
- Victoria, BC
Next steps...
Hi--maybe the next step should be for some British doctors or researchers to write to the GMC complaining that a certain Dr. Wessely, a psychiatrist, who has I believe declared that he knows nothing about the immune system, is practising medicine outside his competence in claiming to treat people with ME, recognized by the WHO as a neurological disease, and in much of the civilized world as a neuro-immune disease, and is promoting and indeed dictating treatment protocols which have been shown to be either harmful or of no benefit. Is the GMC not obligated to investigate all complaints? Chris
Hi--maybe the next step should be for some British doctors or researchers to write to the GMC complaining that a certain Dr. Wessely, a psychiatrist, who has I believe declared that he knows nothing about the immune system, is practising medicine outside his competence in claiming to treat people with ME, recognized by the WHO as a neurological disease, and in much of the civilized world as a neuro-immune disease, and is promoting and indeed dictating treatment protocols which have been shown to be either harmful or of no benefit. Is the GMC not obligated to investigate all complaints? Chris