RCPCH ‘gravely concerned’ over GMC

The GMC was again in the news this week, however, this time they were the ones on the defensive. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, at their AGM noted their ‘grave concern’ over child protection complaints. Dr John Bridson had originally tabled a vote of no-confidence against the GMC, but this was rejected.

Chief amongst their concerns are paedatricians being unfairly disciplined after acting as expert witnesses in child-abuse cases.

This interested me for two reasons:

1. Clearly this links in with my last blog posting. It is interesting that two stories covering largely the same ground - paedatricians being called into Fitness to Practice hearings - happened in same week. Indeed, without going into too many details I seem to have spent rather a lot of time thinking about the GMC this week.
2. Expert witnesses are a crucial part of both personal injury and medical law cases and in fact any case that requires medical expertise and knowledge. Whether it is looking at the evidence itself or satisfying the Bolam test, as science has matured the courts find themselves increasngly relying on their testimony.

On this second issue I think that another move by the courts, being increased reliance on written testimony, may help worried practictioners. If one can take time to write a detailed submission there is less chance, and concordantly less fear, of making a mistake that may lead to the GMC taking notice. I fear, however, that the cases that are suited to written testimony are not the same sort of cases that paedeatricians are subsequently finding themselves infront of a FtP hearing afterwards. I would assume that it is contentious cases, in which it is the expert testimony that is much in debate and on which the case revolves, that are most likely to lead to the GMC believing testimony was negligent or in some way disenguous.

Whilst fabulous Baby Barista may imply that all expert witnesses are ‘on the take’ we must not forget that it is with aiding the court that their overriding duty lies, a duty which I am sure experts take very seriously. I thus welcome any move that encourages experts to give evidence without fear of GMC involvement, whilst am also thankful that the GMC does enforce high levels of scrutiny on any guidance given. I feel this counterbalance is essential and, as ever, the devil is in the detail.

To finish, and in the interest of fairness, I shall leave you with the GMCs rebuttal to the Royal College’s claims:

“Our critics are trying to create the impression that the GMC is intent on unfairly persecuting paediatricians involved in child protection work. Nothing could be further from the truth.”