Following today’s decision by the GMC to remove the sanction preventing Dr Southall undertaking child protection work
Press Release 21st September 2008
PACA welcomes the GMC removing the sanction against Dr David Southall, which prevented him from undertaking child protection work. Dr Southall, like Professor Meadow, has undertaken pioneering work in the field of child protection, which is internationally acclaimed.
PACA has had major concerns about the GMC’s Fitness to Practice procedures, especially in their dealing with complaints in cases where child abuse was considered. PACA has seen leading experts inappropriately censured by the GMC and vilified by the media. This has reduced the willingness with which paediatricians will report suspicions of child abuse and engage in child protection work, including acting as expert witnesses. This is of no benefit to the welfare of children, especially given that child protection is everyone’s business and forms an important part of the practice of most paediatricians. Recent GMC guidance states: “Your first concern must be the safety of children and young people” (Rule 61, GMC Guidance for Doctors Treating 0 – 18 Year Olds, 2007).
PACA has attempted to engage with the GMC, but Professor Catto, President of the GMC, and Finlay Scott, CEO, have responded that PACA is “painting a misleading picture, thus adding to the very problem they say they wish to resolve”. Yet members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health voted virtually unanimously for a motion at their AGM in March this year on a number of areas of grave concern and called for the GMC to review their Fitness to Practice procedures as a matter of urgency.
We consider the GMC have been wrong in imposing sanctions against Dr Southall and their Fitness to Practice Panel was wrong in 2004 to have found him guilty of serious professional misconduct. His legal advice not to appeal the GMC finding was in retrospect in our opinion the wrong decision.
Many of the findings of fact in the 2004 Hearing were merely the opinions of panel members, and substantially influenced by the one paediatric expert who was called and acted for the GMC and Clark family. This expert, Professor Tim David, had numerous conflicts of interest: he had acted in the Family Court with an opinion opposed to Dr Southall’s, failed to follow due process in the child protection process and finally denigrated Dr Southall’s view in the Family Court.
At no time was Dr Southall acting as an expert in the Family Court himself, but had contacted child protection services with concerns as an informed member of the public. The hearing just completed, reviewing the sanction, heard the Dr Southall’s behaviour was completely in?line with his role under the 1989 Children Act. Indeed in documenting his “points of concern” to Professor David, Dr Southall expressed himself strongly as is common in an exchange of views between colleagues.
The GMC seem unable to regulate judiciously cases involving leading child protection professionals. They were unable to recognise their error in erasing Professor Sir Roy Meadow from the medical register, and we believe they have inappropriately censured Dr Southall. His appeal against erasure from the medical register is currently awaited. The GMC must acknowledge their past mistakes – we call again for Professor Catto and Mr Finlay Scott to consider their positions. We expect to see the GMC move forward with an urgent review of its approach to child protection cases.
Interested parties may like to read the transcripts of the recent hearing reviewing Professor Southall’s sanctions, which we hope will become available on our website www.paca.org.uk.
