Fitness to practice and fitness to regulate

IntroductionIn 2012, forensic psychology Professor Jane Ireland published initial research claiming that two third of psychological assessment reports sampled from UK family courts were ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. ‘Fitness to practice’ concerns were raised by vested interest and dismissed after a 1-week hearing – four years later.ObjectivesThe presentation outlines the nature of various UK institutions, such as family courts, HCPC and GMC as well as their practices which raise questions about their fitness to regulate.AimsDelegates will start to learn how institutions that purport to serve public interest yet can be easily exploited by vested interests.MethodsCase studies are used to illustrate how extremely serious concerns were ignored but persecution concerns upheld.ResultsIn one case, four courts appointed experts ignored an obvious child trafficking process where a toddler was raped to cover up birth and disappearance of a newborn baby that succeeded from incestuous rape. In spite of a clinical psychologist failing to cover the two index incidents, the concerns did not meet the HCPC ‘Standard of Acceptance’. A ‘revenge concern’ was raised by vested interests. In another case, the GMC refused to investigate a psychiatrist who had lied and rather absurdly claimed that repeatedly seeking return of her children was evidence for a mother's personality disorder. In a widely publicized case Psychiatrist Dr Hibbert accused of unnecessarily, breaking up families was investigated but cleared of misconduct by the GMC.ConclusionsInstitutions tasked with protecting public safety and fairness appear to be unduly biased towards shielding inadequate professionals and persecuting whistle-blowers.Disclosure of interestThe author has not supplied his/her declaration of competing interest.