This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

ARBs do not increase risk of infarction

GMC debate

From Dr KC Gill


Further to my slightly flattering photograph (News, 17 September) I would like to make some further comments about the GMC based on experience, having been under supervison for five years. I feel compelled to make them despite concern for my future dealings with the body.

As well as protecting patients and guiding doctors, it is clear the GMC has other objectives, which include protecting the position of it and its employees.

The most worrying trend is towards an evermore cautious and conservative approach to the dealing of doctors with ill-health. As a general group, doctors are very successful at returning to work after ill-health whether their illnesses are medical or psychiatric.

The GMC's most recent decision to publish details of my own conditional registration on its website was in some ways a last straw and proof that the claim to guide doctors was tenuous at best.

In my correspondence with the GMC over this matter, which related to their insistence on detailing my condition, which prohibits me from possessing opiates, opioids or any other controlled drug, there was a complete lack of flexibility or understanding.

The drive for openness, irrespective of personal cost, panders to public prejudice and Government pressure. It is a public relations gimmick at the expense of an ill minority of our profession.

I have a further hearing with the GMC in four weeks. Some, including my counsel, say it would have been better that these views were not aired so publicly.

Nevertheless I feel compelled to write, both for myself and my colleagues in a similar situation, who because of the weakness of our lobby understandably remain silent.

Rate this article 

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Have your say