Or perhaps doctors shouldn’t be branding their patients’ internal organs

[Zarathrustra]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/15/doctor-signed-patients-livers-law-courts

Lots of smoke and mirrors here. Why would people be expected to read 'reports'? The Guardian isn't (as far as I know) one of the tabloids. Even the 'report' from a peer supporter didn't refer to the necessary 'branding'. Why not? If it was necessary that would have taken up a line or two.

If the action taken was necessary then the surgeon has been let down by his peers and by the GMC and the Court. I find that a bit hard to believe given that so many people 'in the field' on this thread refer to 'closed ranks' so how come this ever got so far?

Or it wasn't necessary and the case has trundled through the various systems and the upshot isn't really clear... he's still practising, was felt to have brought the profession into disrepute but gave him a rap on the knuckles.

What was the point of it all and how much money did that cost? Just as well the NHS has LOADS of money to chuck around, isn't it.

This is what GMC Fitness to practice panel concluded:

In August 2013 and on more than one other occasion Mr Bramhall initialled patients’ livers using an argon beam coagulator. This conduct does not meet with the standards required of a doctor. It risks bringing the profession into disrepute and it must not be repeated. The required standards are set out in Good Medical Practice and associated guidance. In this case, paragraph 47 and 65 of Good Medical Practice are particularly relevant. 47. You must treat patients as individuals and respect their dignity and privacy. 65. You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession. Whilst this failing in itself is not so serious as to require any restriction on Mr Bramhall's registration, it is necessary in response to issue this formal warning.

Thank you, Nurse. That does make it much clearer.

We really don't have proper journalism in this country anymore, in my opinion because the Guardian article was sensationalised.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe - this forum is for people to give their opinion and I gave mine. As I said in my first post, I can’t get my knickers in a twist about this when there are far worse issues. It isn’t that I don’t think he made an error of judgement, I’ve said a couple of times i think it was wrong and I do think he should have been disciplined. What I don’t get is the outrage towards him when the surgery went well and there is lots that doesn’t go well within the NHS every day. There is medical ‘professionals’ more worthy of this outrage in my opinion.

I’m not one to simply say I agree or disagree without providing the thinking behind my decision. For me this is all being blown out of proportion. You don’t agree but those are my thoughts.

I can't believe anyone would think this is anything other than assault - absolutely assault without question.

I can’t fathom why this wasn’t dealt with within the trust and by the GMC, was it in the public’s best interest to spend the money take it to court? Who gained what?

A criminal got punished - that's in society's best interest. I can't understand why anyone is even questioning this??

Not so much a criminal more a bloody good surgeon whose colleagues had it in for him.

My DH often has to tattoo the inside of patient’s bowels, for basically the same kind of reason SB was branding livers. It doesn’t matter what kind of marks DH makes with the ink, as long as it works and that part of the bowel can be found easily next time that’s all that matters. He often jokes “oh yes I can see my signature here!”

That is a completely different reason,he is doing it for a medical purpose not an ego trip.

But the operations SB was carrying out often required branding, we established that earlier in the thread.

I had life saving surgery a few years ago, although I had an organ removed so it wasn’t there for my surgeon to brand, but I can tell you I would not have minded in the slightest if he had. In fact, I’m having a tattoo in his honour.

The man is my absolute hero. Amazing surgeon, genuinely lovely man and compassionate. In fact I even asked him if he could do my section (I knew he probably couldn’t anyway but had to ask!) his reply ‘don’t be silly gudgy, I’m a bum surgeon!’ (He’s a colorectal surgeon)

missyB1
But the operations SB was carrying out often required branding, we established that earlier in the thread.

But did we find out whether this was an operation that required branding?

The Medical council seems to think that it was inappropriate.

He has a 59 page CV.

Yes, really.

He has a God complex. It was right for him to be charged.

No the GMC didn’t seem to say that the use of branding in that operation was inappropriate, at least that’s not how I interpreted it. To me they were saying that the use of his initials was wrong.

Having a long CV as a surgeon does not equate to having a GOD complex-it more likely means that he has done a shedload of research and has been published many times-Doctors put all their research publications/grants awarded etc on their CV which means that if you've done loads of extra stuff it all goes down. Please don't cast slurs where they aren't warranted and are wrong.

That’s exactly my point.