A former president of the General Medical Council has said it should be disbanded and re-formed.
The GMC is the standard regulatory body that regulates doctors. It is responsible for monitoring doctors and taking action against negligent doctors - ensuring doctors are fit to practise.
Sir Donald Irvine said the GMC needed a fresh start. He said it needed to be re-formed with lay members and medical professionals to give it a convincing fresh start, and for it be an organisation which had the public's confidence.
The Inquiry into serial killer Harold Shipman accused the GMC of being weighted in favour of doctors.
The chief medical officer for England believes an independent tribunal should judge serious complaints.
Sir Liam Donaldson suggested the GMC should also be accountable to parliament and face annual questioning.
Writing in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Sir Donald backs the proposals.
A government review suggests the GMC is stripped of its powers to adjudicate over doctors.
The plans, which will go out for consultation until the end of November, suggest that the GMC investigates complaints but does not make a final decision on guilt or whether further action should be taken.
Doctors would also face regular checks to ensure they are fit to work.
Sir Donald said that the public must be fully informed as patients, not doctors, who may be killed or injured by poor doctoring.
A spokesperson for Alexander Harris, who represented over 200 relatives of victims of Harold Shipman said:
"These proposals for reform of the GMC are long overdue. Following the Shipman Inquiry a number of recommendations were made for changes to how the GMC operates. At present it is strikingly obvious that the GMC is failing in its job of ensuring that doctors are fit to practise. A complete over-haul of the system is needed to ensure that patients are kept safe from negligent doctors."
Back
Related news stories
- 14/07/2006: Chief Medical Officer publishes report into patient safety following Shipman Inquiry
- 24/04/2006: GMC panel recommends gynaecologist Andrew Gbinigie returns to practice
- 27/01/2006: Dr who misdiagnosed hundreds of children with epilepsy is judged fit to practice
- 13/01/2006: GMC hearing rules gynaecologist is fit to practice
- 21/06/2005: Epilepsy misdiagnosis - parents demand GMC action
- 27/01/2005: Shipman : The Final Report
- 29/06/2000: GMC UNDER FIRE
If you believe that you might have a legal claim relating to this story, please complete the online enquiry form or call 0870 024 0558. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a solicitor who specialises in this area.
If you have any comments in relation to this story, please use the online discussion forum.
This news section contains stories of interest to our clients from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.
Related Areas
I am writing to you on behalf of both my mum and the rest of the family to thank you most sincerely the way in which you have conducted my father's claim. You may recall both my parents were a little reluctant to lodge the initial claim, thinking the likelihood of success would be minimal and in any event quite simply would not be worth the effort involved. You visited my father as he was not well enough to travel and took the detailed statement from him both sensitively and unhurriedly.
I know if my Dad were here today he would want to thnk you for getting the facts he needed as quickly as he could to ease the discomfort without putting him under pressure. You also advised us of the possibility of claiming the Governement compensation before we lodged our claim with you. My dad received this prior to his death which helped them to buy everything he needed to make his life more comfortable in his declining health. This included a wheelchair which meant he was able to get out of the house right up to the end which made his illness more tolerable for him. We must also thnk you for being sensitive to my mum's requests and spending the time to explain what her options were. The compensation whilst in no way compensates for our loss; it does feel to us that others have in some way valued our Dad as well as us. Although he was 80 years old he still had a lot of life in him and there is no doubt that the mesothelioma robbed us of more time with him. However, as a family we are all very grateful that we had as much time with him as we did as we are very aware that this is not the case for a number of your clients.
On behalf of my mum, myself and all the family many thanks for all your help, advice, sensitivity and hard work on our behalf. We know our dad would have been thrilled with the outcome.
