Medical Discipline: The Professional Conduct Jurisdiction of the General Medical Council, 1858-1990

The claimant was a retired medical practitioner and sought judicial review to challenge the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Medical Council (GMC) in the course of a preliminary hearing to refuse his application for voluntary erasure from the medical register. Had he been allowed to erase his name voluntarily, the proceedings would have been stayed. The complaint against the claimant related to five patients during his performance as a doctor. It was alleged that the claimant made specific and individual errors, and that the standards of his work were so low, and the errors so gross, that they amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Download Full-text

A model of training for consultancy in psychiatry

Psychiatric Bulletin ◽

10.1192/pb.14.9.543 ◽

1990 ◽

Vol 14 (9) ◽

pp. 543-548

Author(s):

Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye

Keyword(s):

Medical Profession ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Diagnosis And Treatment ◽

Independent Practice ◽

Medical Council ◽

Professional Conduct ◽

Doctor Who ◽

Clinical Area ◽

Important Respect ◽

Full Participation

In the medical profession a consultant is a doctor who has attained the capacity for totally independent practice, otherwise known as clinical freedom. Consultants differ from other doctors in the important respect that they have full clinical responsibility (BMA, 1984). The work of the consultant may be audited by his peers, with his full participation, but may not be supervised by one (DoH, 1989a). Thus, whereas the consultant is accountable, administratively, to his employers, in the clinical area, he is not accountable to any other doctors or managers: he is accountable to the General Medical Council for his professional conduct, and, with respect to the diagnosis and treatment of illness, to the patients directly, the patients' relatives, and the law of the land.

Download Full-text

Legal precedent and medical ethics: Some problems encountered by the general medical council in relying upon precedent when declaring acceptable standards of professional conduct

The Codification of Medical Morality ◽

10.1007/978-0-585-27444-7_11 ◽

1995 ◽

pp. 205-218

Author(s):

Russell G. Smith

Keyword(s):

Medical Ethics ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

Professional Conduct ◽

Legal Precedent

Download Full-text

Independent and Impartial Tribunal

Professional Conduct Casebook ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198817246.003.0038 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Kenneth Hamer

Keyword(s):

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

Professional Conduct ◽

Insufficient Evidence ◽

Professional Misconduct ◽

Incorrect Answer

N, a professor and consultant in obstetrics of international repute, appeared before the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Medical Council (GMC) in May 1998. The charge was dismissed, but, in the course of N’s evidence on oath, it was alleged that he lied to the Committee. The matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which decided that there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction of perjury. However, a second disciplinary hearing took place with a different panel in November/December 2000. The second panel found that N had given a patently incorrect answer under oath and that he was guilty of serious professional misconduct; the panel issued what it described as the severest of reprimands.

Download Full-text

Responding to the Kerr/Haslam Inquiry

Psychiatric Bulletin ◽

10.1192/pb.30.6.207 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 30 (6) ◽

pp. 207-209 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Fiona Subotsky

Keyword(s):

Psychiatric Hospitals ◽

Sexual Misconduct ◽

General Medical Council ◽

Medical Council ◽

Professional Conduct ◽

Professional Misconduct ◽

The Public

In 2004 I was asked by the College first to respond to the Inquiry's questions and later to attend a ‘stakeholders' meeting’. This was not so much in my capacity as Treasurer but as an officer with an interest in the issue of risk and professional difficulties for psychiatrists. A review of the public reports from the General Medical Council (GMC) of their determinations in the Professional Conduct Committee had made it evident that sexual misconduct was probably the single greatest cause of a finding of serious professional misconduct against a psychiatrist. In addition, I had contributed to an earlier debate on sexual safety for women in psychiatric hospitals (Subotsky, 1991, 1993).

Download Full-text