GMC General Medical Council 3/3
- admin
-
Offline
Topic Author
- Posts: 1161
- Thank you received: 153
Replied by admin on topic Dr Martin Scurr
Posted 23 Nov 2018 21:21
Three days ago Dr Martin Scurr’s article in the Daily Mail was forwarded for my attention, and it was encouraging to read that I’m not the only one who vehemently criticises the GMC 
'The central problem, I believe, is that the GMC is driven by a determination to uphold the reputation of the profession at all costs, rather than improve the quality of patient care by stringent policing methods.’
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-64081...Medical-Council.html
This echoes what I have repeated for years, that the GMC protect their fee paying members before the general public!
After reading the article I immediately contacted Dr Scurr, who called me the next day.
I detailed some of my own dealings with the GMC, and those from many MBE Foundation clients, explaining how all our complaints against ophthalmic surgeons ‘investigated’ by GMC appointed experts have been dismissed, even when the expert's report has supported the complaint.
I have copies of too many GMC decisions where the expert writes, ‘the treatment/overall care falls below the standard expected of a reasonably competent surgeon.’
In some cases the report then says, ’the overall standard of care does not fall seriously below that to be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Ophthalmologist.'
But in ALL cases, the GMC registrar says that no action will be taken, the case is closed!
I told Martin Scurr that many of these surgeons (e.g. David Teenan, Alex George, Dimitris Kazakos) have multiple legal claims against them, and yet still the GMC do nothing!
Shockingly, after re-visiting Stephanie Holloway’s complaint v Joanna McGraw, closed first time round, the GMC wrote, 'the allegation that Ms McGraw did not adequately consent Ms Holloway was not in itself sufficiently serious to justify action on her registration.’
Unbelievable, because 'lack of informed consent' was the primary reason for Judge Edward Bailey’s ground breaking Judgement when he awarded £569k to Stephanie - and why I argue with lawyers who persuade their damaged clients to accept insultingly low settlements that OE will NEVER risk going to trial again. And since Stephanie’s trial more legal claims have been made against Joanna McGraw (who left OE and I understand has quit operating).
One of the most shocking lines I’ve read in GMC reports is that they don't consider it 'in the public interest’ to pursue a fitness to practise hearing.
So negligent surgeons can keep on doing what they do so badly without anyone to stop them, because the GMC does not think it’s in the public interest to know what’s going on!
It must be remembered however, that just like the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the GMC are funded by their fee paying members. But while the RCOphth claim impotence, unable to impose regulations of any kind, the GMC are not, and can!
The GMC has a chance to prove itself, currently investigating a major issue that will finally put the refractive surgery industry and its lack of regulation under the spotlight, but that will only be because they can’t get out of it as the GOC and CQC are also involved!
I asked Google, who regulates the GMC?
‘The general Medical Council (GMC) is an independent statutory body established under section 1 of the Medical Act 1983. The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is responsible for overseeing the health and care professional regulatory bodies, including the GMC. The PSA carries out annual checks on the regulators' effectiveness, reviews all final fitness to practise decisions, as well as auditing the initial stages of the fitness to practice process.’
www.professionalstandards.org.uk/what-we...eral-medical-council
So the truth is, no-one! Because, just like the police, the GMC is self regulating, and, just like the police, will find no fault!
Excerpt from the GMC decision in response to my complaint against Dr Wilbert Hoe in 2016:
'In applying the realistic prospect test, we should have regard to the GMC’s over-arching objectives. These are to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public; promote and maintain public confidence in the profession; and promote and maintain proper standards and conduct for members of the profession.*
It is more than five years since the operation about which Ms Rodoy complaints. No further concerns have been reported about Mr Hoe.**
Mr Hoe has retired. He would otherwise no doubt have noted Ms Rodoy’s central complaint and amended his practice accordingly.***
We conclude that there is no realistic prospect of demonstrating that the doctor is not currently fit to practise and that he poses an on-going risk to patient safety.
Further, we do not consider that there is a realistic prospect of a finding of impairment solely in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.'****
* The GMC’s over-arching objectives? To protect and support their fee paying members.
** One month after my own debilitating surgery, Dr Hoe made the same mistakes with Maria K in Ireland. But even worse, in an attempt to fix the problem, six months later he performed mono vision, that Maria had explicitly advised she did not want! And yes, she sued Dr Hoe and Optimax.
*** ROTFLMAO - of course he would! And there’s another flying pig!
**** ?
Martin Scurr mentioned the GMC’s ineptitude, but in my opinion it’s worse than that - the GMC are not fit for purpose!
'The central problem, I believe, is that the GMC is driven by a determination to uphold the reputation of the profession at all costs, rather than improve the quality of patient care by stringent policing methods.’
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-64081...Medical-Council.html
This echoes what I have repeated for years, that the GMC protect their fee paying members before the general public!
After reading the article I immediately contacted Dr Scurr, who called me the next day.
I detailed some of my own dealings with the GMC, and those from many MBE Foundation clients, explaining how all our complaints against ophthalmic surgeons ‘investigated’ by GMC appointed experts have been dismissed, even when the expert's report has supported the complaint.
I have copies of too many GMC decisions where the expert writes, ‘the treatment/overall care falls below the standard expected of a reasonably competent surgeon.’
In some cases the report then says, ’the overall standard of care does not fall seriously below that to be expected of a reasonably competent Consultant Ophthalmologist.'
But in ALL cases, the GMC registrar says that no action will be taken, the case is closed!
I told Martin Scurr that many of these surgeons (e.g. David Teenan, Alex George, Dimitris Kazakos) have multiple legal claims against them, and yet still the GMC do nothing!
Shockingly, after re-visiting Stephanie Holloway’s complaint v Joanna McGraw, closed first time round, the GMC wrote, 'the allegation that Ms McGraw did not adequately consent Ms Holloway was not in itself sufficiently serious to justify action on her registration.’
Unbelievable, because 'lack of informed consent' was the primary reason for Judge Edward Bailey’s ground breaking Judgement when he awarded £569k to Stephanie - and why I argue with lawyers who persuade their damaged clients to accept insultingly low settlements that OE will NEVER risk going to trial again. And since Stephanie’s trial more legal claims have been made against Joanna McGraw (who left OE and I understand has quit operating).
One of the most shocking lines I’ve read in GMC reports is that they don't consider it 'in the public interest’ to pursue a fitness to practise hearing.
So negligent surgeons can keep on doing what they do so badly without anyone to stop them, because the GMC does not think it’s in the public interest to know what’s going on!
It must be remembered however, that just like the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, the GMC are funded by their fee paying members. But while the RCOphth claim impotence, unable to impose regulations of any kind, the GMC are not, and can!
The GMC has a chance to prove itself, currently investigating a major issue that will finally put the refractive surgery industry and its lack of regulation under the spotlight, but that will only be because they can’t get out of it as the GOC and CQC are also involved!
I asked Google, who regulates the GMC?
‘The general Medical Council (GMC) is an independent statutory body established under section 1 of the Medical Act 1983. The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) is responsible for overseeing the health and care professional regulatory bodies, including the GMC. The PSA carries out annual checks on the regulators' effectiveness, reviews all final fitness to practise decisions, as well as auditing the initial stages of the fitness to practice process.’
www.professionalstandards.org.uk/what-we...eral-medical-council
So the truth is, no-one! Because, just like the police, the GMC is self regulating, and, just like the police, will find no fault!
Excerpt from the GMC decision in response to my complaint against Dr Wilbert Hoe in 2016:
'In applying the realistic prospect test, we should have regard to the GMC’s over-arching objectives. These are to protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public; promote and maintain public confidence in the profession; and promote and maintain proper standards and conduct for members of the profession.*
It is more than five years since the operation about which Ms Rodoy complaints. No further concerns have been reported about Mr Hoe.**
Mr Hoe has retired. He would otherwise no doubt have noted Ms Rodoy’s central complaint and amended his practice accordingly.***
We conclude that there is no realistic prospect of demonstrating that the doctor is not currently fit to practise and that he poses an on-going risk to patient safety.
Further, we do not consider that there is a realistic prospect of a finding of impairment solely in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.'****
* The GMC’s over-arching objectives? To protect and support their fee paying members.
** One month after my own debilitating surgery, Dr Hoe made the same mistakes with Maria K in Ireland. But even worse, in an attempt to fix the problem, six months later he performed mono vision, that Maria had explicitly advised she did not want! And yes, she sued Dr Hoe and Optimax.
*** ROTFLMAO - of course he would! And there’s another flying pig!
**** ?
Martin Scurr mentioned the GMC’s ineptitude, but in my opinion it’s worse than that - the GMC are not fit for purpose!
- admin
-
Offline
Topic Author
- Posts: 1161
- Thank you received: 153
GMC General Medical Council was created by admin
Posted 15 Dec 2017 06:13
Optical Express really don’t care who they employ to operate on people’s eyes
This was never more apparent than when they shockingly allowed Dr Philippe Leynaud to operate on their French patients - after the GMC struck him off the UK medical register in 2013.
Although Optical Express closed the store (luckily for the French people), it’s incredulous that Dr Philippe Leynaud now has his own clinic in Lyon!
I believe that a doctor’s full history should be disclosed to the medical council of any country he or she attempts to work in, and the same restrictions put on their license to practice.
However, if the French medical council is as tolerant as the GMC, with surgeons like David Teenan, Dimitris Kazakos et al allowed to continue operating with ever increasing and numerous legal claims against them, no doubt Dr Leynaud will also continue to damage many more of his patients without hindrance!
This was never more apparent than when they shockingly allowed Dr Philippe Leynaud to operate on their French patients - after the GMC struck him off the UK medical register in 2013.
Although Optical Express closed the store (luckily for the French people), it’s incredulous that Dr Philippe Leynaud now has his own clinic in Lyon!
I believe that a doctor’s full history should be disclosed to the medical council of any country he or she attempts to work in, and the same restrictions put on their license to practice.
However, if the French medical council is as tolerant as the GMC, with surgeons like David Teenan, Dimitris Kazakos et al allowed to continue operating with ever increasing and numerous legal claims against them, no doubt Dr Leynaud will also continue to damage many more of his patients without hindrance!
Moderators: admin