Does the GMC think we are happy to take our children to see a GP who has a child porn habit?

[DrPr]

The Hereford Times says that a GP who downloaded child pornography that the General Medical Council said was "abhorrent and repugnant" and that they found "shocking", describing acts between adults and boys, is OK to keep on being a GP because it is not going to interfere with his job. I don't know what to think. Some parents won't mind, but some will and are we going to be told about him so that we can make a choice? Would we be happy to take our sons to him? What does everybody else think?

"Many people that read this sort of 'material' will progress onto child porn images."

Hmm, yes, fiction as a "gateway drug" to becoming a paedophile. Correlation is not causation - paedophiles will seek out such fiction or books, that doesn't mean reading it causes people to become paedophiles.

What people choose to read in their own time is their own business. Unlike photos of child abuse, writing and reading literature does not involve any real children being harmed. The same should apply to drawings of abuse in my book - it's not real. People choosing to read or view it might suggest that they have dangerous tendancies that may become apparent later, but it's not and shouldn't be taken to be a crime in an of itself.

I personally would not choose to read such material, but I do read plenty of other things which might be considered weird or unpleasant by some people. That doesn't mean I want to engage in the described behaviour myself, and it doesn't affect my daily work and relationships with others.

He is suspended from the medical register for a minimum of six months pending appeal. This means he cannot work at all. His case will be reviewed in 6 months. The GMC can rule to keep him suspended, erase him from the register or reinstate him. They can choose to keep him under suspension for quite a long time.

'ILove Tiffany - If he's downloading child porn for I'm assuming his own personal pleasure then he has psychological issues surely? It's certainly not 'normal' behaviour is it?'

doesnt make him 'mentally ill' (your words) at all...so dont agree with you. paedophiles are not all put in mental health units are they? no,they are put in regular prisons with other offenders

and abnormal behaviour does not = psychological issues!

No, the books should not be banned if they are being read in their correct context. If however, you read fictional accounts of children being abused repeatedly to get your rocks off - as he did - then it becomes a completely different matter.

I can't believe that I'm having a conversation with a woman who thinks what this GP did is OK.

LoveCat, those kind of misery porn books to which you refer have always been abhorrent to me and should be taken off the shelves...

so,where is op?? not been back as far as i can see

If people want to tell themselves that it won't progress to images in the majority of cases then more fool them imo.

I don't want to see any written fictional material censored.

Ilkboo, at the risk of getting very Daily Mail-esque, his suspension will be on full pay

any further suspension at the end of 6 months will be on full pay, with no detriment to his pension etc

a GP in my area was in this situation for 4 years

oh, well, another subject entirely I suppose...

No, no fiction should be censored. However, the issue here is not about censorship - it is about whether or not a GP with access to children, in a caring role, should continue for 4 years to want to read fictional accounts of children being sexually abused. The GMC have found in favour of common sense here.

amber, we are not talking about censorship here

GibbonInARibbon - does everyone who has ever enjoyed a "dubious consent" or rape fantasy in a book or film, or even just in the privacy of their own head go on to rape someone or really want to be raped themselves?

Curiousity or just visiting an escapist fantasy world where things can happen that you would never do in real life should not be criminalised.

With you entirely on that AF - I believe it should be suspension no pay. The point I was making was that nobody will be taking their children to see him because he's not working. He may never work again (he can be asked to be removed from the medical register permanently for instance and this could be granted as being in the public interest for him never to be able to see children again. They couldn't do this themselves (erase him) as he wasn't charged with a criminal offence. It's bloody complicated.

I know ilk, I just couldn't resist putting it in black and white

it seems there is no punishment

his good standing in the community permanently tarnished ??? Is that the best we can hope for...??

it appears not, with the likes of squirrel and amber around....

I've got to agree with amber here. The man sounds like an absolute sicko but he was reading works of fiction.No children were harmed and having practiced as a gp for 20 odd years he's probably had many opportunities to act out these fantasies if he so wished and he has not.
I'm not defending his sexual fantasies but the idea that a man who has broken no laws and harmed no one should be struck off for his private thoughts is a bit tought crime-esque.
Her points on R&J and the misery style books are valid. She is not saying they are like for like, she is saying that once you start legislating against fiction for one rason or another then other books will be brought into that scope through analogy.
If we say no "child porn" books or books depicting scenes of a sexual nature which may be used for the sexual gratification of people with paedophile fantasies, then those books could easily fall into that category.

• meant to add that there should be some note of this made on his record and made known to potential patients so that they can decide for themselves if they do not wish to be treated by such a man. I'd never even speak to him let alone allow him to treat me or my family.

veering off into censorship issues here is off the point

this OP was about this particular man in his particular position in the community

and people were asked to respond as to whether they would be happy to use his services

my answer is no

I know he wasn't and I am not condoning what he did or how he was treated.

However, some on here seem to be equating what he did to actual child abuse? Insisting that children were somehow harmed and that some kind of censorship should exist regarding writtten material...?

The idea of thought crimes and the censorship of the written word I find very frightening indeed.

If you can find accounts of child abuse in Romeo and Juliet, then I've obviously missed something!

It comes down to what is appropriate for someone in his position to choose to read. If he's been using NHS computers to download that kind of material, then he should face the same disciplinary procedures as other NHS staff. We're all very clear what we can and can't access. If he has direct access to children, and finds the idea of them being abused in any way thrilling, then he probably shouldn't be anywhere near them, and should definitely be getting help.

amber...the only thing I disagree with in your last post is the fact that you maintain "no children were harmed"

that is so black and white, and sooooo naive

the existence and availablity of such material does harm children. It normalises the idea that children are sexual beings. I know you think I am hysterical in that view, but I think you will find it is a widely-held one

amber...black and white question to you...

do you think this man should be allowed to practice as a family GP ?

romeo and juliet were young,juliet 13...is that where its coming from?

No he shouldn't.

However, I maintain that no children were harmed.

I see where your coming from, but you could argue that Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire normalised the drinking of human blood...

What we're getting into is the old, does art only imitate life or vice versa? Argument

I'm of the former school of thought.

The original post might have been specific to this doctor and this case, but if the discussion moves further on to questions of censorship then okay!

Normalisation argument: you could argue that showing storylines of domestic violence on Eastenders "normalises" DV. Or that shows like CSI "normalise" brutal murder.

I'm definitely with amber on the please-don't-criminalise-my-thoughts front. The idea that we should destroy people's lives on the basis of their reading material - just black and white text on a page - is horrifying.

What AF said.

The child pornography that the doctor was reading was found, by the General Medical Council, to be "shocking, abhorrent and repugnant".

Of course child pornography - especially child pornography that has been declared abhorrent by a generally respected organisation like the GMC - is harmful to children.

As AF said earlier - if anyone believes that written child pornography isn't harmful to children, and those viewpoints are allowed to persist, of course child pornography will become increasingly accepted.

Just because the pornography was made by adults, without any children being involved, doesn't make it ok.

Do you think cartoons of child pornography shouldn't be censored either?

And in answer to the OP, of course I wouldn't go to this GP again, and of course he should be struck off from his position of trust and responsibility in the community.