Public concern for children’s safety in “climate of fear”
It is becoming clear that children remain at risk if they do not have the protection and advocacy of professionals. There has been an increase in violent crime against children according to figures from the NHS as published in the Observer, April 20 2008 by Jo Revill, Whitehall editor.
Observer article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/13/childprotection.health
There are many reasons for this, but it is the view of PACA that one major contributory factor is the increasing reluctance of doctors and other professionals to risk bringing concerns about child abuse to light for fear of condemnation and censure. The Guardian has published an article about this “climate of fear” (April 13 2008 by Gaby Hinsliff, political editor) which has arisen consequent to the GMC actions against Southall, Meadow and San Lazaro. The consequence of this “climate of fear” may be that in another 5 years we will see a further tragic rise in assaults on children.
Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/apr/20/children.nhs
The GMC feel that this is not their responsibility and continue to repeat the same reassurances about numbers of paediatricians brought to fitness to practice hearings. PACA feels that the GMC figures do not reflect the true impact of the high profile cases; nor do their statements reflect the RCPCH work on this subject, as evidenced by the numerous unfilled child protection consultant posts.
The Guardian article, whilst being very helpful in highlighting many of the concerns that PACA seeks to publicise, has been challenged by David Southall. Southall’s concerns relate to details of Finlay Scott’s statement and some assumptions made in the text of the article. He has written a letter to the Guardian explaining this which was not published but reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
Mr Scott in his statement published in the Observer last weekend is said to have claimed that the new complaints about research soon to be heard by the General medical Council (GMC) in a public hearing against Drs Southall, Samuels and Spencer was not evidence of a vendetta. He stated that the GMC has twice rejected the complaint and reopened the files only after losing a judicial review sought by the complainants. ‘We defended our decision but the court said we were wrong,’ Scott said.
Examination of the ruling shows that the appeal was allowed for three reasons. Firstly the Preliminary Proceedings Committee (PPC) of the GMC had failed properly to apply the “realistic prospect” test that there could be serious professional misconduct. Secondly, the PPC had wrongly failed to disclose Professor Southall’s responses to the complainants. Finally, the PPC had wrongly relied too heavily on a paper in the British Medical Journal which had supported the research work. The Appeal Court ordered the GMC to re-convene a new PPC to examine the complaints in a proper way and then make a decision as to whether or not a Fitness to Practice public hearing should go ahead. Thus the GMC could have responded to the judgment, re-examined the evidence and again rejected the complaint. The PPC equivalent that was constituted by the GMC however decided that a public hearing should go ahead. Thus it was not the Appeal Court but rather the GMC that made this decision.
The article wrongly states that the GMC adjudication centres on the death of one baby, “who was taking part in trials of a procedure designed to help infants who were having difficulty breathing” and falsely claims that “her sister was also left brain-damaged”. The hearing actually focuses on research governance and does not investigate these tragedies which the evidence already and overwhelmingly shows was due to the premature births of the two babies.
Dr. David Southall
