Background:
It was the Health Professions Councils (HPC) case that on 15 April 2010, the Registrant began posting on the Bad Science Forum under the alias Jonas making comment in relation to Dr XY and her practise. Further
it was the HPC case that these comments were disparaging of Dr XY.
Decision on Facts:
...this Panel has comprehensively considered all the oral and written evidence
and has viewed a cd of the Registrants posts on the Bad Science Forum in relation to particular 1. The Panel find, independent of the Registrants admission, the facts alleged at paragraph 1 proved to the requisite standard.
Decision on Grounds
It is the Panels judgement that the Registrants conduct alleged at paragraph 1 of the allegations was inappropriate and unprofessional. In acting as he did he failed to keep high standards of personal conduct as well as professional conduct and his behaviour fell short of what would be proper in the circumstances.
Decision on Impairment:
Whilst this Panel does not question the Registrants motivation with respect to his interest in the use of internet sites such as the Bad Science Forum to discuss and debate clinical issues it nevertheless finds that his posts were disparaging, inappropriate and unprofessional. As set out above the Registrant failed to keep high standards of personal conduct and it is the Panels judgement that his behaviour had the potential to damage public confidence in him and his profession. Whilst the Panel accept that he has shown some insight and that there is a low risk of repetition, it is the Panels judgement that there is a clear need, in this case, to declare and uphold proper standards of behaviour and maintain public confidence in the profession. The Registrant admitted misconduct in making disparaging comments on the Bad Science Forum about Dr XY could undermine public confidence in him and in his profession. In the circumstances of this case the public would expect the Registrants regulator to make a finding of impairment. Public confidence in the profession and the HPCs regulatory role would be undermined if a finding of impairment of fitness to practise was not made.
The Panel finds that the Registrants fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of misconduct.
Decision on Sanction:
...[The panel] has considered the question of which sanction to impose in ascending order of severity. It notes that where a Panel has determined that fitness to practise is impaired, it is not obliged to impose a sanction.
It first considered to take no further action, but decided against this course having regard to the seriousness of misconduct set out above.
To dispose of this case by taking no further action would neither reflect the seriousness of misconduct found nor address the public interest considerations referred to above. This misconduct cannot, in the Panels judgement, be categorised as minor.
Having decided that to take no further action would not be appropriate in this case, it next considered the imposition of a Caution Order. In that regard it considered all the criteria set out in the above mentioned indicative sanctions guidance. It notes that this case does not involve any issues in relation to the Registrants clinical competence and further notes that the misconduct did not cause any patient harm.
The Registrant has apologised for his misconduct, now realises that his actions fell below the standards expected of a registered professional and has shown genuine remorse. Further, it is the Panels judgement that the majority of his posts on the Bad Science Forum were not inappropriate and that there is a low risk of reoccurrence of his misconduct.
The Panel has decided to make a Caution Order. It notes that 3 years should be regarded as the bench mark for such an Order but has decided to decrease that period to two years to reflect the mitigation present in this case, set out above
http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hea...ex.asp?id=2556
