Uses and abuses of the GMC

Uses and abuses of the GMC

The recent furore over the treatment of Mr Meirion Thomas has highlighted the fact that  a GMC referral can be a weapon in a personal dispute (just like clinical incident forms, for example). Interesting that the GMC was emphatic that it was not going to get involved in such matters, because "Meirion Thomas had a right to speak freely" according to the Daily Mail.

This statement seems at odds with previous decisions of the GMC. For example, it appealed the High Court decision in Meadow v GMC that it was for the courts to decide what the standards for providing expert evidence should be. 

Further, its apparent swift rejection of the complaints about Mr Thomas may seem surprising, given that his comments were widely seen as unreasonable and wrongly denigrating professional colleagues, contrary to GMC guidance in Good Medical Practice:

  35. You must work collaboratively with colleagues, respecting their skills and contributions.

  36. You must treat colleagues fairly and with respect.

  37. You must be aware of how your behaviour may influence others within and outside the team.

Of course, the GMC has changed its interpretation of intraprofessional duties of respect to allow the raising of concerns (a change which is long overdue). It seems to be stretching the definition of whistle blowing beyond endurance to describe Mr Thomas's diatribes as bona fide whistle blowing.