Harrop MPTS Hearing

I'm not AH's defence barrister. I'd be happy to see the little scrote erased from the GMC register for life. But we need to be careful about the precedents that can be used against us.

To add, the difference is remediating skills and behaviour is something we all know from our own lives. I have, with practice, got much better at making cake. That's skills. I have not - sadly - got any better at not eating all the cake. That's behaviour.

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant the relevant case law is Cohen v. the GMC, where the panel has to ask themselves:

1. Is the conduct remediable?
2. Has it been remedied?
3. Is it highly unlikely to recur?

It is generally accepted that (if the doctor is willing to make hte effort!) it's relatively easy to remediate a lack of clinical skills. It's a training issue, basically. It's relatively hard to remediate behavioural issues.

There's also case law (Grant v. NMC) that, even if the conduct has been fully remediated, it may be necessary to make a finding of impairment to maintain public confidence in the profession.

If it's established that the practitioner has 'deep seated attitudinal issues' then that would tend to push the panel to erasure. If the charges of threatening behaviour are made out (currently they are allegations which are denied) then it might end up going down that route, particularly given what appears to be a history of warnings which have been ignored.

Interesting times.

But the crux is whether he is showing contempt for women as a sex, or just for particular individuals who happen to be women.

Interesting distinction. Imagine if it were any other demographic. "It's pure coincidence that all the people I was so vicious to were black." (Or gay, or Irish, or Jewish.)

My point is that, though we might infer it's the former (I certainly do), we want the threshold for proving this in Law to be very high, as it is more likely to be used against us than to benefit us, especially given that misogyny is not a hate crime.

If disagreeing with some members of a particular group (women in AH's case, TRAs in our case) is considered hate speech against that group as a whole, it's a very slippery slope for freedom of expression, and I fear it will be weaponised against us, given the degree of institutional capture by TRAs.

But what he did went beyond disagreement. I would expect any GC doctor to face similar investigations if they showed such open and public contempt for trans people including doxxing and tweeting implied threats.

The DM article said he was 31 - that's young to me (showing my age)

LOL- yeah, now I'm in my 50s, anyone under 45 is a whipper-snapper 😁

I don't know that I agree

I'm not saying that I think any penalty should be minor, just that I suspect it might be.

The DM article said he was 31 - that's young to me (showing my age :)).

It’s a shame that in that DM article, they didn’t say that he had previous warnings/disciplinaries but carried on as he saw it as using his platform for the greater good, I think that really shows arrogance.

I didn't realise that he was so young or newly qualified

He is not. He has been a fully qualified doctor since 2012, so he must be early 30s. He only completed GP training in 2019, but that's not unusual. Many GPs opt to do extra hospital/primary care training before completing their GP qualifications.

As someone (can't recall who; sorry) the issue is not one of skills that can be remediated but of behaviour, that can't. Although he's has had a number of complaints lodged against him and two written warnings, he has not changed his behaviour and this means that he is not likely to do so.

I didn't realise that he was so young or newly qualified.

That's leading me to think any penalty will be minor.

I am incandescent with rage that her can do what he did and it is not a police matter when women only have to go 'meep' and they get dragged away for questioning and put on trial.

AH has not actually said anything abusive about women as a sex (!), AFAIK

He did tweet that bizarre stream of consciousness about wanting all 'ciswomen' to have to use segregated toilets because they're so dangerous.

You have to be a bit careful with that argument though, @Bordois, as it could equally easily be made about doctors expressing GC views. There are many TRAs out there, panting to get us struck off, and the GMC and RCGP are fully-Stonewalled. If disagreeing with some members of a particular group (women in AH's case, TRAs in our case) is considered hate speech against that group as a whole, it's a very slippery slope for freedom of expression, and I fear it will be weaponised against us, given the degree of institutional capture by TRAs.

AH has not actually said anything abusive about women as a sex (!), AFAIK. We might well extrapolate his choice of targets and worldview as expressing misogyny, but he would no doubt claim that he just happens to have argued with more women because there are more women expressing GC views.

I am relieved that the GMC is focusing on his alleged offences against individuals, rather than getting into more general issues of misogyny, both because the former are easier to prove and because I think any general ruling about misogyny would have been a Pyrrhic victory for the GC cause, and instantly weaponised against us.

@Bordois agreed.

[quote Motorina]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I entirely agree.

To illustrate that from the other side, as it were, I used to treat people who were in a secure unit. The nature of the ward I was on was that most of the patients had an extensive history of sexual offences, often involving children.

Believe me when I say I felt about those patients rather the way I suspect Harrop feels about Ciswomen.

Did my feelings about what they had done stop me from giving them high quality care? No. Did it stop me treating them with respect and dignity? No, it did not.

I think most clinicians keep how they feel about their patients seperate from how they treat them. Ultimately, providing high quality, respectful healthcare is our job. Liking our patients isn't.

Not condoning Harrop in any way. Just saying that how he was on twitter and how he was in the sugery may have been two very different things.[/quote]
I understand the point being made, but the difference is that by putting his feelings on twitter that they are no longer personal.

If you had spelt out your contempt for patients you were caring for all over social media and made it so specific patients could be identified, I don't think that that would go down well with your employer.

Thats not even getting into the differences between having negative feelings towards actual sex offenders and having negative feelings towards all women in general.

Those examples remind me of Dictionary definitions of extremist

• a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters

• a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices

• a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical

• someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable

I wonder if that post will get deleted as a personal attack

It's a shame that article didn't mention JK Rowling (unless I missed it, it was tiny on my phone with a load of bloody adverts!) This was a highlight - reading this, even those women who are as yet uninformed about the wider issues or who this man is, would think oh fuck off you sexist prick (even without the doxxing and threats)

"Then he urged her: 'Try to stay calm, dear. Don't get your knickers in a twist"'

What's with the DM " rivals" descriptor? Bizarre.

I wonder if his mother is still proud of him?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I entirely agree.

To illustrate that from the other side, as it were, I used to treat people who were in a secure unit. The nature of the ward I was on was that most of the patients had an extensive history of sexual offences, often involving children.

Believe me when I say I felt about those patients rather the way I suspect Harrop feels about Ciswomen.

Did my feelings about what they had done stop me from giving them high quality care? No. Did it stop me treating them with respect and dignity? No, it did not.

I think most clinicians keep how they feel about their patients seperate from how they treat them. Ultimately, providing high quality, respectful healthcare is our job. Liking our patients isn't.

Not condoning Harrop in any way. Just saying that how he was on twitter and how he was in the sugery may have been two very different things.

I find it fascinating how convinced he clearly was that he was on the side of the angels, to the point of ignoring disciplinary advice.
This seems to me to be part of the wider problem where young people do not know the difference between activism and being nasty to people on the internet.
If you are convinced you have been put on this earth to make pro trans posts on Twitter it is possible to do it without nastiness, threats, retweeting a post calling someone a c word…

Trust, that's the word. It feels completely eroded by his actions and how emboldened he clearly felt.

He didn't have any care for anything other than being right. Wanting women to delete themselves off social media because they disagreed with him. Threatening to go to their location and bring clubs. Repeatedly harrassing someone even after you ask them to stop. Making slurs about taking mental health medication.

Because they have "wrong think". Total erosion of trust by a man who swore to Do No Harm.

Obviously I would be horrified to encounter AH as a colleague or doctor. But I have to say that there isn't always a strong correlation between how doctors behave in their personal lives and how they behave with patients - with the exception of when there are addiction problems, which bleed into both.

I have had colleagues who are massive twats as colleagues and/or in their personal lives, but who are nice to patients and good clinicians. And, to a lesser extent, vice versa - some people who are nice as colleagues/friends, but who do not have a good bedside manner. Most doctors have a 'stage personality' when with patients that - for good or bad - can be quite different from their real persona.

I'm not saying this in defence of AH. I hope he fucks off to Spain, or wherever Gender GP are lurking, at the earliest opportunity. But, if he does stay, he won't necessarily be awful to patients, even women, despite his grotesque misogyny. He is clearly extremely vain and, IME, doctors like that are often nice to patients because they like to be liked/admired.