This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

GMC invites GPs to provide evidence to its medical manslaughter review

The GMC is urging doctors, especially those in training, to provide written evidence to inform its medical manslaughter review.

The review, launched in light of the controversial case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, is looking at how cases of gross negligence manslaughter (culpable homicide in Scotland) involving doctors are initiated and investigated.

The review's working group, which includes former RCGP chair Professor Clare Gerada, will look at the ‘wider issues’ around medical manslaughter cases, including ’diversity matters’.

The working group has invited 'the medical profession, patients and the public' to weigh in on the review through an online questionnaire, which is open until 27 July.

Dame Clare Marx, who leads the working group, said: 'Given the breadth of issues covered by the review we are really keen to hear from as wide a range of organisations and individuals as possible, especially doctors in training.

‘Anyone with experience, expertise or an interest in gross negligence manslaughter or culpable homicide, or in what happens following serious clinical incidents, may have insight which will help us shape our review and findings.'

She added: ‘Our questionnaire covers all the main areas we are looking into, and so there are a lot of questions. People should answer as many or as few as they wish, but the more thoughts and ideas we receive the richer the evidence from which we will be able to prepare our report.

'We’re also keen for people to put forward views and suggestions on anything they think is relevant but that we’ve not specifically covered in our general questions.’

The review will also hear oral evidence sessions and hold workshops, including specific events for trainees, patients and the public, across the UK.

A report on the review findings is expected to be published early next year.

Junior doctor Hadiza Bawa-Garba was struck off the medical register following a controversial High Court ruling in January.

The case saw the GMC arguing that being convicted for manslaughter should be automatic grounds for striking off a doctor despite a different finding by its own tribunal.

 

 

 

Readers' comments (7)

  • This should be done in light of the appeal not before.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • GMC and their stooges running for cover before the storm breaks?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Beware! Corresponding in any way with GMC is like waving your ring at Sauron's Eye.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Negligence,such an unpleasnt word implying we sit around drinking and smoking while the patient expires.

    Actually we are taking about being shown hundreds of results very fast, while fielding as many distractions as possible, and failing to spot the absolute significance of every one,100% of the time.

    Clearly the great dames are not sure what to do,how to approach this or who to talk to.

    There is only one person,they need to go to, the head of the CPS in Leicester,and ask for the guidelines he works to .The criteria and standards he applies.

    Is there a point at which he would say ,the doctor was too overloaded and therefore cannot be held responsible for the death,or is it that if a patient dies,the doctor is responsible,no matter what the other factors.

    Ask him hundreds of potential scenarios,analyse his answers and publish the findings

    He is the only one who counts

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Logically, Jack got better. His bloods were better. He was laughing in XRay at 12, the nurse felt him so well, she stopped observation at 3 pm, he was bouncing about at 1630. He was transferred out of CAU to ward 28 by someone [ Not Dr BG, in this manslaughter case, we do not know this crucial bit of information!!], because he was well.
    Can there be any doubt that the ACEI given at 1900 caused severe hypotension in this bouncing child?
    Yet, the expert witness states not. Furthermore this expert witness states that a diagnosis of Gastroenteritis in a child with Vomiting and diarrhea of 12 hours is negligent. Is this not an absurd statement from absurd expert witness? He goes on to say Dr BG ignored ' Obvious deterioration', when in fact Jack got better. Is this not a distortion of facts and so absurd, that he needs to be reported ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said everyone. The system strain, lack of staffing, training should be taken into account.
    Why was the Enalapril given by the mum to a septic patient not taken into account. God help any nurse or doctor who gives it. It will be highlighted to no end. Blame should lie with the pill giver. Mothers do not always know best.The double standards and lack of justice is shocking.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well said Truth finder. Who in God's name gave permission for the mum to give the Enalapril? Did she even think of asking a doctor given the fact that this was not a normal day for Jack? And is it really True Compassion on all our parts for us to be allowing her to run around claiming that " Justice for Jack" is striking Hadiza off? That will only serve to encourage the Grand Inquisitors of the GMC....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say