Medical Expert Witnesses and the GMC
The thorny issue of shaken baby syndrome has been contested in the courts many times. It is part of the scientific process that there needs to be robust debate over facts and theories. Although police forces and prosecutors may prefer to have settled science to support their prosecutions, often the science involved is not unequivocal. There is a range of legitimate opinion on the subjects of shaken baby syndrome and forensic sleep disorders, among many other bio-medical matters. Nevertheless, sincerely held scientific opinions have resulted in referrals to the GMC - an area which is arguably outside its remit (and certainly outside its field of expertise).
So Waney Squier is before the GMC on the basis of her testimony on shaken baby syndrome. Complaints against her have been made by the National Police Improvement Agency. This followed a report that a British police officer suggested that dissenting expert witnesses should be investigated. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11094379/Shaken-baby-expert-faces-witch-hunt.html)
According to the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service (who run fitness to practise hearings), the allegations are:
that during these proceedings Dr Squier provided an expert opinion evidence by way of written report and/or oral evidence outside her field of expertise. It is also alleged that Dr Squier failed to discharge her duties as an expert in that she failed to work within the limits of her competence, to be objective and unbiased and to pay due regard to the views of other experts.
It is alleged that Dr Squier’s actions were misleading, deliberately misleading, dishonest and brought the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.
http://www.mpts-uk.org/calendar/event_details.aspx?ID=29076af4-7fce-44b2-81c3-914d078f1acc
It is regrettable that the decision of Judge Collins in the High Court in Meadow was overturned. He ruled that the GMC should not invoke disciplinary proceedings unless a trial judge commented on the quality of expert evidence given. The Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, stating that the GMC was able to adjudicate where such issues impacted on fitness to practice. It is unclear when, if ever, a doctor’s expert witness work would impact on their fitness to practice.
The courts set the standards for expert testimony, and it is the courts that should adjudicate on these matters. If they are concerned, then a GMC referral may be appropriate. Having a party to court proceedings refer expert witnesses to professional bodies is not conducive to the fact finding process.
So Waney Squier is before the GMC on the basis of her testimony on shaken baby syndrome. Complaints against her have been made by the National Police Improvement Agency. This followed a report that a British police officer suggested that dissenting expert witnesses should be investigated. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11094379/Shaken-baby-expert-faces-witch-hunt.html)
According to the Medical Practitioner Tribunal Service (who run fitness to practise hearings), the allegations are:
that during these proceedings Dr Squier provided an expert opinion evidence by way of written report and/or oral evidence outside her field of expertise. It is also alleged that Dr Squier failed to discharge her duties as an expert in that she failed to work within the limits of her competence, to be objective and unbiased and to pay due regard to the views of other experts.
It is alleged that Dr Squier’s actions were misleading, deliberately misleading, dishonest and brought the reputation of the medical profession into disrepute.
http://www.mpts-uk.org/calendar/event_details.aspx?ID=29076af4-7fce-44b2-81c3-914d078f1acc
It is regrettable that the decision of Judge Collins in the High Court in Meadow was overturned. He ruled that the GMC should not invoke disciplinary proceedings unless a trial judge commented on the quality of expert evidence given. The Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, stating that the GMC was able to adjudicate where such issues impacted on fitness to practice. It is unclear when, if ever, a doctor’s expert witness work would impact on their fitness to practice.
The courts set the standards for expert testimony, and it is the courts that should adjudicate on these matters. If they are concerned, then a GMC referral may be appropriate. Having a party to court proceedings refer expert witnesses to professional bodies is not conducive to the fact finding process.
No comments:
Post a Comment