Madam, – Prof Kieran Murphy has offered a reasonable explanation (April 2nd) for the conduct of the recent Medical Council disciplinary hearing in public.
However, he fails to justify the decision to conduct a full-scale disciplinary hearing in the first instance. The doctor in question was already apologetic and his misdemeanour was not even deemed worthy of sanction. An expression involving sledge hammers and nuts comes to mind.
There is strong lay representation on the Medical Council to safeguard the public interest. Doctors are also answerable in private to their employers and in public to the courts (where appropriate). It is not clear to me why, in these circumstances, it is necessary to hold any disciplinary hearings in public.
I find Prof Murphy’s attempt to spread blame to the media somewhat lame.
The media coverage, justified or otherwise, was totally predictable.
In the final analysis it could be argued that whole performance was abusive to both the patient and the doctor. While I am sure the public were interested, I fail to see that any justifying public interest was served. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Medical Council, not content with shooting itself in the foot, has now gone on the rampage and shot the messenger as well (April 2nd). Dr Muiris Houston’s incisive piece on the so-called “rumpy-pumpy” case simply reflected the thoughts of everyday doctors and the public at large, most of whom were appalled that these proceedings went as far as they did.
It is high time that the Council considered a “penalty points” type system so that a watchful eye may be kept on doctors who clock up minor or mild transgressions. This would have the added advantage of sparing genuinely aggrieved patients the embarrassment of testifying in public to tribunals and tabloids.
The council cannot simply wash its hands of this case which was taken to a full Fitness to Practise Inquiry because the council’s own Preliminary Proceedings Committee decided to take it. Nobody else made that decision for it. The Medical Council, whether dominated by doctors in the past or by Ministerial appointees as is now the case, has never liked criticism.
A great pity that is, for it is perhaps the core reason its competence is so often called into question. – Yours, etc,