After 4 years of wrangling over disputes, I decided to ask the GMC whether we should all approach the courts for a judicial decision on their efforts to mislead. Over the years, I have collected a fair amount of data on the General Medical Council. I am not quite sure why they are hell bent on making enemies out of doctors but there we go. It is part of the GMC's dysfunctional outlook on life.
So I have offered them as follows
1. To settle the dispute on whether I resigned or was fired during their pointless investigation of me in 2007. As I have paperwork showing I was fired, I often wonder what the GMC will wave in court. Perhaps they will roll into court with yet another consultant who is willing to fabricate evidence for them.
2. The GMC told a number of people under FOIA that it is not up to the doctor under investigation to inform their Trust of said investigation - it was up to the GMC. In my case though, the GMC offered a dastardly message to the Trust. Apparently, I was under an obligation to inform the Trust of the 2007 at the start of the investigation. I showed the GMC the memo from the Trust. The GMC denied ever stating it but had cleverly lost the telephone memo. All telephone memos existed for the investigation bar that one. They then attempted to mislead me through email. Its amazing what they say to other people though. The fact is there was no obligation on me to inform the Trust. The GMC had already informed them 4 days before I knew about the investigation - afterall the Trust had contacted the GMC to find out what my "investigatory status was". The GMC denies that my name disappeared from the Register. It did though disappear and this was the reason for the Trust contact with the GMC. The GMC continues to shimmy around this subject.
3. Rule 53 of the Management of Doctors Guidance. The GMC denies that the Medical Director in my case was responsible for the delegated managerial tasks conducted in his name. The rule states quite the opposite. This is really about William Monteiro citing that I had resigned when the paperwork showed I had been fired. He didn't just cite it anywhere - he cited it in court. That is where times become a little precarious for all concerned.
I felt the need to document the above. It is only because no one fully realises the utter stupidity of the GMC. These are people who are supposed to protect patients yet they find it difficult to be honest in three points. Each point above is evidenced to the hilt. The GMC have now continued this charade for four years. I wonder how long they plan on continuing this game of hide and seek for. It is coming to a point where I feel that the three disputes should be resolved by a judge. Don't get me wrong - I like playing hide and seek but after a while, its time to do other things in life.
In the end, the GMC keeps making its own enemies by being obstructive. Each day another doctor is treated with contempt. I am not quite sure why they cannot be honest, fair and reasonable. It doesn't hurt to be nice. Afterall, bar the fact the GMC hates the ground I walk on, what do they achieve by being obstructive. More doctors start to observe them and say " hey, is this what we are paying for"? The GMC is plagued at present with doctors suing them at the Employment Tribunals. Perhaps if the GMC were reasonable, so many of us would not be challenging them.
My reason for challenging the GMC is four fold
1. I want to demonstrate how obstructive and unreasonable they are.
2. I want to demonstrate the fact that their negligence costs livelihoods and patient lives.
3. I am unable to work in the NHS. The GMC might say it is no loss to them. It is though a loss to members of the public who had no objections to me working. So while, the NHS whines about doctors who cannot speak English, at least 5 of my friends and I are ex-communicated out of the NHS for no particular reason. The GMC remains indifferent to our livelihoods despite the profession of medicine being a civil right.
4. The GMC must be legitimately criticized and challenged to improve it for generations to come. This is why there must be equality of standards, transparency, honesty and decency within our regulatory body.