BMA responds to proposals on the GMC

British Medical Journal,  May 6, 2000  by Linda Beecham

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

The BMA agrees that the powers of the General Medical Council should be enhanced to allow it to better protect the public.

In its response to the NHS Executive's consultation document, Modernising medical regulation: interim strengthening of the GMC's fitness to practise procedures, the association agrees that interim suspension should be possible where a doctor's conduct is putting patient safety at risk. It points out that suspension has severe implications for a doctor's income and contractual relationship. For CPs, the BMA suggests that the NHS tribunal would be a more effective body to order suspensions as this would protect doctors' pay and contractual relationships.

The NHS Executive proposes that doctors whose names are erased from the register should not be able to apply for restoration in less than five years. The BMA agrees with the GMC that the period should be three years. It points out that after five years it would be virtually impossible for a doctor to make up the lost ground. It might be argued that a five year ban, which would amount to a life exclusion, would be in contravention of human rights legislation. The BMA would like the GMC's professional conduct committee to set a minimum erasure period for each case.

The association also points out that the proposals on disclosure of information could contravene human rights legislation, particularly when the Human Rights Act becomes law in October.

The BMA supports the proposal to allow non-GMC members to serve on its fitness to practise committees to help with the backlog of cases and give greater flexibility.

COPYRIGHT 2000 British Medical Association
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning