R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal 2009

This was the first test case regarding the function of the Registrar. This case was brought to improve the GMC's administrative functions. We felt that the test at the first stage was not robust enough to protect against vexatious complaints. This case originated from two complaints made by a known group of msbp campaigners. I had campaigned and assisted on the David Southall case and was sadly caught in the quagmire he had fallen into many years ago.

The first was made by Penny Mellor and the second by Fiona Woolard. Mellor's history can be reviewed here. She was also heavily featured in the BMJ. What is interesting about this test case is this, Mellor's misunderstanding and lack of knowledge filtered to the minds of those assessing the complaint. As many will see, there was an adject failure by the GMC to assess whether or not I could use the term "psychiatrist" and whether or not a "Link" on the internet was a breach of confidentiality. The best summary of the facts of the case was outlined by the Register. 

The case also demonstrates that the GMC may regularly treat two doctors in a diametric opposite manner. On identical facts concerning the "link", the General Medical Council discarded the complaint below. This can be compared to the judgment by Collins J featured here. It should also be noted that the General Medical Council used a different test for me to the one in R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Remedy UK. To put it more simply, it appears that two caucasian doctors are treated more leniently than a British Asian doctor. This may be coincidental. Nevertheless, it is a distinct finding that the General Medical Council is incapable of treating doctors equally. The GMC's own website states that accountable regulation has the following traits "Respect the principles of good regulation: proportionality, accountability, consistency, transparency and targeting". 


It should be noted that due to the new disclosure rules [ the complaint being disclosed to all employers], my fragile medical career came to a standstill.

For avoidance of doubt, despite inordinate amounts of work for the child protection issue and David Southall, PACA's supported  Kim Holt. They failed to support the above case publicly. Following the above case, the General Medical Council decided to include a vexatious policy in 2009. PACA though decided to take the unilateral credit for it as featured by the BMJ.  The effort was actually bilateral. My legal team and I had been debating the change of rules related to Rule 4 with the General Medical Council since 2007. This legal point was never debated by PACA .

General Medical Council's Response in a identical complaint. 

Dear Mr Kilkenny

Our ref E1-9HY14

Thank you for your email about Dr Aubrey Blumsohn. I am sorry for
the delay in our response.

Our Fitness to Practise procedures focus on the most serious
concerns,which call into question a doctor's fitness to practise and right
to retain unrestricted registration - that is his or her right to
work. In many cases, concerns about a doctor can best be considered at a
local level, by the doctor's employer.

We have carefully considered the information you provided and
understand your reasons for writing to us. However, we have decided that this
is not a matter that justifies action under our procedures, as the
doctor's profession is incidental to the issue you have raised with us.
You have suggested that Dr Blumsohn has breached confidentiality by
including a link on his website to another website containing
information relating to a BPS hearing. It would appear that in
these circumstances any breach of confidentiality has been committed by
the owner/operator of the website on which the information appears. In
any case, the information posted on the website does not relate to a
patient of Dr Blumsohn and is therefore outside our guidance on
confidentiality.

As the issue you have raised does not appear to have any bearing on
Dr Blumsohn's ability to practise medicine we are therefore unable to
take action on your complaint.

Yours sincerely

Tim Cox-Brown
Investigation Officer
Fitness to Practise Directorate
Direct Line: 0161 923 6427
Fax: 0161 923 6578
E-mail: tcoxbrown@gmc-uk.org

- -----Original Message-----
From: kevinkilkenny@hushmail.com
[mailto:kevinkilkenny@hushmail.com]
Sent: 15 Jul 2007 00:03
To: GMC Fitness to Practise
Subject: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dear Sir,
I wish to make a complaint against Dr Aubrey Blumsohn (GMC number
3366141). I understand that this doctor owns and administers the
Scientific Misconduct website (http://www.scientificmisconduct.
blogspot.com/).
In the posting "Am I Normal? More on the case of Lisa Blakemore
Brown",
(http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/02/am-inormal-
more-on-case-of-lisa.html) Dr Blumsohn includes a link to a
website called Furious Seasons, on which is contained confidential
material from a hearing of the British Psychological Society.
I understand that doctors working in the UK are obliged to maintain
confidentiality, and I cannot see how this is compatible with
publication of confidential minutes of a BPS Fitness to Practise
hearing.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to
contact me. In the meantime, I anticipate that you will want to take this
up with Dr Blumsohn as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Kilkenny.