Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

New GMC guidance on anonymity is a control mechanism

  • Print
  • Comments (2)
  • Save

We have to be registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) in order to practise medicine. That is the law, and has been so for over a hundred years. We need some form of licensing of doctors to prevent any passing osteopath, quack or charlatan calling themselves doctor and pretending to be a doctor.

Time was when the GMC was a well-respected organisation that would allow the profession to regulate itself. We paid our annual fees, elected senior and knowledgeable people to sit in judgement on us, ensuring that we behaved appropriately. This system worked reasonably well, and other professions (including dentists and teachers) sought to emulate the model. It was democratic, and I remember voting in triennial elections for people to sit on the GMC. They were the great and the good.

Not any more.

We must now look at what the GMC has become in my professional lifetime. Effectively it has changed into a sprawling monster that wants to control all parts of our lives. This is a serious charge for what should be a serious organisation, but I cannot conclude any differently.

Recently, the GMC put out a discussion paper about its wish to consider doctors’ behaviour when they were not at work. If I were politically active at the weekend (either for the right- or leftwing), that could be used as evidence. This paper got quite a robust response.

However, like all good institutions, if it is rebuffed in one area, it picks up on a different one. This time the GMC wants to ban doctors posting on social media sites anonymously where it is known that they are medically qualified.

It wants ‘Jobbing Doctor’ to name himself.

The grounds for this suggestion appear quite flimsy to me. It is about giving anonymous medical advice to people. My perception of an underlying agenda is more serious. I have blogged for five years as the ‘Jobbing Doctor’. It started out as an online reflective diary of an average GP. I never expected many people to read it, so I’m flattered that I have a regular audience for my ramblings. I wanted people to look at the message I was talking about, and not who I am (which is unimportant).

During that period I have been threatened by people who do not like my opinions: those threats were not to unmask me but report me to the GMC on spurious grounds.

It would appear that, by issuing guidance advising me not to blog under a pseudonym, the GMC wishes to extend its reach.

But the GMC is appointed to its work by the Department of Health. To me, this makes it an arm of the executive. It can ruin me by withdrawing my license to practice and yet I don’t have any democratic vote on the nature of this regulatory body. Does the GMC want to silence me?  That’s how it seems to me.

The Jobbing Doctor is a GP in a deprived urban area of England. You can follow him on Twitter @jobbingdoctor.

Readers' comments (2)

  • I totally agree with @jobbingdoctor.I served as elected member of GMC for 15 years with pride and dignity.I was elected by the profession and I represented ther interests within the frame work of GMC regulations.Now this August Body has reduced to an appointed wing of DOH and has no independence.it is not democratic and secular..Medical profession has no faith and does not look up to it as a leader.Recently the old members of GMC had a reunion at House of Commons along with the past presidents.It was a proud nostalgia..The past presidents were stalwarts and we looked up to their guidance.I feel very let down looking at the present structure and functioning of GMC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course, you have no freedom of speech if you are a registered doctor in UK according to GMC judging by the persecution of whistle-blowers through their sham peer reviews. Anybody in UK can submit to GMC false allegations and if a little gang supports each member it is very easy to strike an innocent doctor even if the process takes them years. Remember that GMC also appoints who is going to judge you if you are a registered doctor.
    Yes, they are out to get you, so do what you must.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (2)
  • Save