You are hereBlogs / dr-no's blog / Constructive Erasure
Constructive Erasure
Dr Helen Bright is an extrovert, capable consultant psychiatrist who, for lifestyle reasons, chooses to work as a locum. Or rather did, for she has now been constructively erased from the Medical Register.
Dr Bright remains on the Medical Register, but has a string of conditions on her practice so draconian that it is quite impossible for her to find work - see here. Because she cannot work, she has no opportunity – even if she accepted them, which she does not – to comply with the conditions. She has been sent down the salt mine, with no way out. She has been effectively erased from the Medical Register – without being erased. She has, instead, been constructively erased.
Now, there is no doubt that this is a cunning ploy on the part of those sinister panellists who sit on the General Medical Council’s (GMC) Fitness to Practice (FTP) panels. Dr Bright had certainly upset them, but her alleged misdemeanours were not so heinous that erasure or even suspension were deemed to be appropriate punishments. Indeed, had such punishments been applied, Dr Bright might well have won on appeal, on the grounds that the punishment was disproportionate given the crime. Nonetheless, the panellists were determined that Dr Bright should never work again, so they devised an alternative: apply conditions with which there was no realistic prospect of compliance. Dr Bright would be prevented from ever working again. Quite clever, really, if it wasn’t so sinister.
What, you may wonder, were Dr Bright’s crimes that so upset the GMC? Had she been killing patients? Goosing patients? Got her hands in the till?
Not a bit of it. In fact, the FTP panellists even agreed that she was a competent capable and caring doctor. Instead, her crimes relate to attitude and behaviour. She doesn’t behave in a way that the GMC find acceptable.
Dr Bright has in fact had two hearings before the GMC. The first, in 2003, came about because she had questioned the appropriateness of a nun wearing her habit at work in a psychiatric setting (there were other misdemeanours, but it was this one that caught the limelight - see here and here). Whatever your views on such matters, it is nonetheless a legitimate question to ask. But the GMC panellists – who, interestingly included a devout Christian amongst their ranks – did not approve. Dr Bright was found guilty of Serious Professional Misconduct and, on this occasion, her case was concluded with a strong reprimand.
Dr Bright’s second hearing, and the one that gave rise to the conditions attached to her practice, occurred in 2006/7. Her only unequivocal, unchallenged crime was calling a colleague – a nurse - a liar whilst “wagging a finger” at her. Well, sometimes nurses, and indeed doctors, do lie. There were various allegations which involved altercations with other clinical staff, and although some of these were found proven by the panellists, there remain questions as to whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the findings of fact.
Notwithstanding the possibly dubious nature of the proof, this was sufficient for the panellists to adopt a “pattern of behaviour”/no-smoke-without-a-fire line of reasoning which caused them to find Dr Bright guilty again of Serious Professional Misconduct – and this time round they decided enough was enough, Dr Bright had to be stopped – and so they applied conditions to her practice that now leave her unable to work – and unable to appeal.
This is a gross abuse of power by the GMC. Certainly Dr Bright has been intemperate with colleagues – but then there cannot be many doctors who have not at times behaved in such a way. There is no doubt about her clinical abilities (and it is noteworthy that none of the complaints filed with the GMC came from patients or relatives). To deprive a competent and capable doctor of their livelihood and ability to practice for what amount to a series of politically incorrect blunders is both disproportionate – and sinister.
Even more worryingly, Dr Bright is not alone in suffering at the hands to the GMC. Her case also raises a number of other concerns about the GMC’s handling of complaints about doctors. Perhaps it is time we began to question the attitudes and behaviour of those who sit in judgement at Euston Towers.
Contact Form
Atom feed with thumbnail
RSS feed (no thumbnail)
Follow Dr No on twitter
Listed by Date
Listed by Category
Sinister indeed, who's next? We wait to see.
"Sometimes nurses, and indeed Doctors do lie"I take great offence with this comment.Everybody may lie! But this nurse who was called a liar and had DR Brights finger waved at her must have felt threatened and demeened to have reported this incident.I can't imagine how she must have felt.one does not expect this reaction from a caring consultant.I would be extremley interested to find out the reason for this squeaky clean consultants outburst.The GMC have not taken this decision lighltly.If indeed this dr bright did admit to calling this nurse a liar she deserves to be erased.As i realise this is the only offence which was proven i wonder how much more should be challenged.
Obviously there are some nurses who spend too much time creating trouble as opposed to doing any constructive work. I assume you are one of them.
RP
A Nurse - not sure why you take 'great offence' - seeing we're both saying the same thing - anybody/everybody can lie - be they doctor, nurse, politician, Catholic priest or Joe Bloggs.
As Ritz points out, not all nurses are angels. It may the that a meek nurse was bullied by an aggressive consultant - or it may be that resentful nurses (there was more than one present) ganged up on a locum consultant. It happens.
More generally, were the GMC to erase all doctors who wagged a finger and called a colleague a liar, then we would loose an awful lot of doctors (including, of course, many GMC connected doctors). Dr No does not condone professional bust-ups, but he does accept we are all human, and prone to human failings. Talking the problem through and apologies as appropriate seem a more grown up and sensible approach than GMC referral and erasure.
what a shame - everyone has been in a situation like this, and no wonder those working in locum doctor roles get such a bad reputation. the GMC should be working hard to maintain its own reputation, and then things like this would never make it into the public's negative pschye.
I am one of Dr Helen Brights ex patients, She is fantastic at her job! So what if she called a nurse a lier? We all get angry at times, its normal! Was for the nun situation, I totally agree, all uniforms should be banned in psychiatry! She said it in the best interest for her patients/ others that have been abused by clergy! I think the GMC should concentrate on the bad doctors, that kill patients! Not the good ones! I'm ashamed at the way she and other doctors have been treated! Do the GMC have no respect! Surely it can't be easy being a doctor?
sorry I was supposed to say as* instead of was..... Ie as for the nun situation!
ERASED FROM THE REGISTER AND LOST APPEAL IN COURT - SHE WAS WRONG OR IS THE WHOLE WORLD CONSPIRING AGAINST HER? PARANOIA PERHAPS? WONDER IF SHE WOULD HAVE SECTIONED HERSELF?
Until one has lived a situation, it's difficult to understand what can take place. I have experienced horrific things within the NHS and Social Services I'd not have believed possible, until it happened.
What I felt was fear at getting nowhere, frustration beyond bearing concerning the treatment of an elderly person.
I queried my own "paranoidal tendencies" - and came to the conclusion that what took place really did, no paranoia on my part, though from the outside it looked just that.
Very importantly, those in power should be extremely circumspect with their power, and make sure that, along with their judgment, there is genuine understanding and compassion; for the situation, and for the person/s...
Sadly, this is often not the case.
There is such a thing as Freedom of Speech. Telling the truth is not professional misconduct. It is protected by Article 10 of Human Rights Act 1998, for example. Freedom of speech is protected by law and the fact that somebody feels offended is just not enough for it to be regarded as an offense.
Waving a finger in the presence of someone does not mean that the finger is waved at them. Please, read the transcript of my hearing at GMC.
GMC and courts do not always get it right and there are various appeal routes one can take. I have outstanding appeal at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.
"A nurse" is welcome to read GMC transcripts available to all as I asked for a public hearing so all of you can have it. Please, make a request to GMC and they will email you, A Nurse. Essentially, a nurse claimed I told her that I would see a patient who was not on outpatient list as she could see for herself. Without asking me she just added him to the list and left the list in the public corridor on the surgical trolly; note turned upside down. I carried on seeing my patients who were on my list the copy of which I had in my office which was not altered by this nurse or anyone else. I was completely unaware of what was written on the note placed in the corridor upside down by her. I did not tell her I would see this patient as she falsely claimed. So, that is a lie. Happy now? There were some unusual aspects to this case in that it was pediatric nurse who was getting involved with psychiatric patients without being asked by me. There was a receptionist who could have dealt with the issue of the appointment. It is recognized psychological phenomenon that those who have poor boundaries are likely to victimize others and also find themselves victimized. It is possible that this nurse was quite simply used by management for different reasons.After I left, several months later one of my patients died within twenty four hours of being admitted to a hospital. I was asked to attend a meeting in the hospital although I no longer worked there. I asked for the copies of the notes and prescription charts for this patient to be sent to me so that I could make a meaningful contribution to the meeting. Hospital declined to send me the notes and prescription chart. Undeterred, I obtained a copy of the post-mortem from coroner's office stating that this patient died a natural death. I did not think this was the correct verdict because she was on a lot of medication, and one of the drugs at least was contraindicated at the time. I did not prescribe this medication so it must have been prescribed by one of the local doctors after I left the trust. So trust decided to do me in because they were paranoid about their own liability for the death, possibly. Even though the coroners verdict was of natural death the verdicts can be overturned on further investigations. Does anyone care about the truth? No, is the answer. The daughter of this patient allegedly read about my previous case at GMC which was about me objecting to a Catholic nun wearing a religious uniform. Imagine, Northern Ireland where so many people had been discriminated against because of their religion and where all of this was taking place.
GMC does fix the trials by fixing who sits on the Fitness to Practice Panels and is also institutionally racist. I stood no chance with religious fanatics appointed to the panels judging me. There were also other members with other conflicts of interests.
The matters were further complicated by government and GMC policies of treating locum doctors differently. Equality Human Rights Commission refused to help individual locum doctors when they complained to them about discrimination. They and GMC have a case against them with European Commission for breaching various European Directives. Recently government introduced a new law regarding equal treatment of temporary workers.
Psychiatry is a shortage specialty in UK. I have never harmed any patients by anybody's findings.
Illness like depression is known to be associated with the higher incidence of myocardial infarction and psychotherapy does reduce the risk by about 20%. Suicides can be prevented too. Therefore, I conclude that neither NHS, GMC or courts acted in public interest which they are supposed to do when they mistreated me and excluded me from clinical work.
I do not find it difficult to understand that willful blindness is more pleasant to some people than having to consider the needs of mentally ill people in the first place.
Add a comment...