"Sex offender doctors can't be banned in case it breaches human rights"

[NameChangingYetAgain]

From the Telegraph

Can anyone explain to me why the fuck they can't?

[NameChangingYetAgain]

Sorry, I didn;t mean to swear.

[hiddenhome]

Disgusting.

I was seriously sexually assaulted by two separate doctors - one was a consultant paediatrician when I was young, the other an obstetric registrar when I was pregnant with ds1

[edam]

Bollocks, now to do with the Human Rights Act at all - it's the GMC justifying their own lack of oomph as usual. Sadly the current lot really aren't focused on protecting patients. The GMC may not have the legal power to ban sex offenders automatically but that's not the fault of the HRA, it's something the GMC should have the wit to ask for. When he talks about an independent panel, I assume he's referring to the GMC's own panels that hear misconduct cases. So all he's saying is that sex offenders aren't automatically banned, they have to go through misconduct hearings. (I think the GMC may have a backlog of these.) It's down to Dixon to ask for the power to automatically ban sex offenders, rather than trying to deflect criticism by saying ooh, not our fault mate.

[ReallyTired]

So why is that some one with a caution for something silly like being drunk in public at 15 is banned from teaching? Surely a doctor should have to have a clean CRB check like teachers.

[RagingDull]

interesting. it came to light some years ago that one of my doctors has indecent images of children on his PC and kept some pseudo images in his locked desk - a locum found them.

he was sacked but moved and was practicing again until an ex patient spotted him in another county and outed him.

he was a creepy creepy little man and his wife was a psychologist. i cannot understand why human rights legislation trumps the rights of children he could go on to abuse or watch being abused over the internet.

the job i am in is ruled by HR legislation and it is a joke. it ties our hands to a degree which makes it almost impossible to work sometimes.

[RagingDull]

btw - he was convicted of having pornographic images of children - does this mean he could be practicing again?

[scaevola]

Doctors do have to be CRB checked; that's what the article means by GMC saying that it's up to the employing Health Trusts.

This is about whether they are struck off the Medical Register. I note the article cites 31 doctors, but later says only 10 are in contact with patients. What are the others doing? For this suggests there are posts which use their medical knowledge but do not put them in contact with patients.

[iklboo]

Doctors do have CRB checks. They're only worth anything if they've been caught for anything.

[seeker]

In what way is this anything to do with Human Rights Legislation?

I have actually never come across anyone who claims that their "hands were tied" by Human Rights Legislation" who didn't want to do something that would breach someone's human rights.......

[kissyfur]

WTAF?? Surely they gave up their human rights when they committed sex offences!? Disgusting

[RagingDull]

i am not going to reveal what i do seeker but what i do is to the benefit of society and is very hard to do at times as the "baddies" have more rights than you or i.

[seeker]

"i am not going to reveal what i do seeker but what i do is to the benefit of society and is very hard to do at times as the "baddies" have more rights than you or i."

No they don't.

[stitch]

now i want to know what raging dull does. seems far more interesting than some legislation the gmc has.

[RillaBlythe]

Doctors are CRB checked right from being medical students.

[weegiemum]

Tee talking bollocks!!

MY dh is a GP. One allegation of sexual misconduct he'd be out of a job. For good. Which happened to a colleague of his

[scaevola]

I've just had a look at the article.

It doesn't say the GMC cannot remove doctors from the Register upon conviction (whether sexual or other serious offence), it says they cannot do so automatically and it seems the HR issue concerns automaticity, not ability to ban. So all it means is they have to have a hearing.

Same for all (?) similar bodies - doesn't eg every lawyer get a hearing before being struck off?

[mirry2]

I was sexually assaulted several times by my GP some years ago when i was in my teens but didn't really realise that he was carrying out an uneccessary examination until he made some extremely explicit moves on me. I was too scared to complain and felt too sillly that I had allowed him to do what he did so I moved GPs instead. I subsequently learnt from friend that he was notorious for sexually interfering with young girls living away from home. How times have changed - I hope.

[lljkk]

Well spotted, Scaevola.
I know it's a small comfort, but I thought the situation was that anyone on SOR was banned by other laws (that don't conflict with HR legislation) from working with any vulnerable individuals, too. It's an offence for them to merely apply for jobs that require contact with vulnerable adults or children.

Implies all this article has to do with is procedures for dismissal & maybe doctors in private practice.

[OliviaPeaceAndLoveMumsnet]

Ahem

[lljkk]

Aw nuts, that's no fair, too quick for me to read it more than once.

[RagingDull]

well i reported so thats fine.
i stand by saying that this poster is argumentative and unpleasant.