Professionals Against Child Abuse

Peter Gooderham is a PACA member and a former GP. He is currently an academic lawyer with an interest in clinical negligence, professional regulation, and the role of expert witnesses. He recently gave this presentation on the role of the GMC to the Birmingham medico legal society.

Download PDF here (3.6MB)

The determination of the GMC panel, following the recent hearing looking at the condition imposed on Dr Southalls’ license to practice, was not fully explained in a sympathetic article in the BMJ written by Clare Dyer. This rapid response now published as a letter sought to make things clearer.

Here is the letter, published 13 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2069, and reprinted here with permission.

Letter Title: Southall verdict
Subject: Clarification
PACA members wish to make it clear that the apology Professor Southall made at his recent hearing was not about the child protection importance of the episode of nose bleeding and difficulty in breathing described by Mr Clark in his own words on a television programme—an incident that had occurred in his 10 week old infant just 10 days before his sudden death.1 Southall apologised about the language in his report, which was an agenda item for a meeting of professionals involved in the family court case, including Southall, Professor David, who was acting as the instructed expert, and the child’s solicitor.

The phrasing he used was regarded as injudicious by one of five child protection experts at the recent General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing, and as a result he apologised (only to Mrs Clark) because it damaged the message he was giving and because it was originally used by the GMC in 2004 to find him guilty of serious professional misconduct, thereby causing damage to child protection in this country.

Panel members indicated that they understood only too well the importance of the nose bleeding incident (see transcripts on www.paca.org.uk). The latest GMC panel was thus very clear and supportive regarding Southall’s evidence on the incident of nose bleeding and difficulty breathing; they accepted his opinion as a result of what they heard from the five experts. The panel also dismissed the issue of Southall’s failure to interview the parents, given that he was acting as an informant to the proceedings and not as an instructed expert.

John Bridson, coordinator,
Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA)

References
Dyer C. Southall is allowed to return to child protection work. BMJ 2008;337:a1811. (24 September.)