Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category.
22nd May 2009, 10:42 pm
Following the erasure of Dr David Southall from the GMC medical register.
PACA is saddened to learn that David Southall’s appeal in the High Court
today was unsuccessful in overturning the decision of the GMC’s Fitness to
Practise Committee to erase him from the medical register in December 2007.
The GMC have held three Fitness to Practise Hearings against David Southall:
in 2004, 2006-7 and in 2008. Only in the 2007 Hearing did the outcome lead
to a permanent restriction on David Southall’s ability to practise medicine.
PACA believes the GMC have acted inappropriately and have been improperly
influenced by a skilful and hostile media campaign by parents involved in
alleged child protection cases and their advocates. PACA is now concerned
that today’s result will have further serious and negative effects on the
willingness with which doctors will engage in child protection.
Internationally acclaimed and eminent paediatricians involved in child
protection have sustained repeated harassment in recent years, including
from the GMC. PACA considers that the GMC preliminary assessment procedures
have been ignorant of the nature of child protection procedures in the
Family Courts and that this case should never have been brought against
David Southall; that he has always given honestly held opinions, based on
extensive experience in complex child protection cases and solely with the
purpose of protecting children has never been questioned.
The disciplinary actions of the GMC, today supported by the High Court, will
be a further deterrent to paediatricians and other health professionals from
engagement in child protection work. Last year, the Royal College of
Paediatrics and Child Health voted overwhelmingly to express their grave
concerns about the GMC’s actions in the cases of both Professor Meadow and
David Southall. PACA considers today’s action will be a disservice to
children. The GMC should act only to encourage doctors to report child
protection concerns and engage in child protection work, by making them feel
safe from disciplinary actions, unless the doctor has been shown to have
acted incompetently or with malice.
We will provide full comment when we have read the full judgement.
[Update - the full judgement can be read here: Final_Southall_22_05_09.pdf (236 kb)]
2nd December 2008, 04:02 am
This is not the first reasoned comment published by OnMedica about safeguarding children. This one concerns the baby P case. We need to see clearly amidst all the tabloid encouraged anger.
Read the article online here
Download PDF here
21st November 2008, 05:48 pm
We think the Laming terms of ref. give PACA adequate scope to contribute to his review. We still do not have an address for his review but note that the ministers letter says he will provide all necessary resources. We have sent our submission to the DCSF expecting them to forward it…
Terms of ref. of Laming Baby P review 17.11.08.pdf
haringey statement update12.11.08.pages.pdf
21st November 2008, 05:42 pm
The ongoing deaths of young children as a result of abuse should signal the fact that the current system of investigation and care still has shortcomings. Perhaps the processes of classifying abuse and the investigation of abuse need reflection. These two papers might help with a reassessment of the process.
Paper on types of abuse.pdf
Police lead child protection BMJ 2003.pdf
22nd April 2008, 02:40 pm
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
