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?

amber...if you don't think he should be allowed to practice as a family GP, on what basis are you making that decision ?

serious question...think about it carefully..

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

well yes the point was that if you are going to punish people for getting sexual kicks from works of fiction involving children involved in sexual acts then where do you draw the line? What if he had been reading such materials but not receiving any sexual gratification from it? does that change the dynamics? What then about a book like lolita or a play like romeo and juliet? If it had been posted that a doctor was getting off on the idea of 13 year olds having sex and reading fictional works about this subject would that be unacceptable? In which case it could encompass R&J.
And I'd still maintain that no children were harmed by his actions.

Given that vampires don't actually exist, Interview is maybe not the best analogy.

Excellent post, Fun.

do people really think that the actions of individuals have no bearing on society as a whole ?????????

This isn't about banning works of fiction. They aren't banned. That is quite clear. This man is guilty of no offence in law. The question here is whether he is fit to practise as a GP. Whether going about a lawful pastime (for want of a better word) is grounds for someone being unfit to practise a particular occupation.

no man is an island...and all that ????

if i were him i think i'd resign anyway...

apart from the morality of the whole thing,it would leave him open to further allegations....some people like to cause trouble for people in these circumstances..would it be worth staying in a position where he's open to this?

amber...are you still thinking ?

you agree with me that this man is not fit to practice as a family GP

why ?

It's also bringing the profession into disrepute which is a big GMC no no

R and J was written about 400 years ago, wasn't it? The main theme is not the sexual relationship (which is not explicit throughout the play), but the family feuds and tragedy that bought about their death. It's simply nonsense to try and justify what he did against a Shakepearian backdrop!

ahem

just out of interest...although it isn't relevant to this thread, at all

Has it never occurred to the stupid among you that many readers of those misery memoirs wank themselves into a frenzy at the graphic depictions of child abuse contained therein?
Are you perhaps unaware that prisoners convicted of sex crimes have been known to use court transcripts of their own and similar crimes as wank fodder?

While there's merit in the argument that pictorial material which can only be made by actually harming a human being is in a separate category, the written word is just the written word. Whether you're a 'nice' individual reading depictions of horrors to.. er... um... wallow in someone else's misery because your own life is boring, or to get sexual gratification makes no difference to the existence of the printed word. And whether the writer wrote it to call attention to horrors in order for them to be prevented in future or whether it was written as wank fantasy is also irrelevant (particularly given the number of misery memoirs which have been proven to be completely made up, one does wonder about the motivations of the writers as well as the readers.)
It sholdn't be illegal to view or possess any viewpoint expressed in writing. End Of.

Which stupid posters is that aimed at SGB?

Amber had something to do in RL lol

AF, you really want to know my answer?

Right, certain profesions have certain standards. For example, if you're declared bankrupt there are certain professions barred to you (financial, legal etc). To relate it more to this case, would it be considered appropriate for the nurse who runs a stop smoking clinic to have a twenty a day habit? Probably not.

Recently a pharmacist local to me was reported to have written something on the internet deriding the use of the morning after pill. I don't think that person should be allowed to continue to act as an NHS pharmacist.

There are professions where certain interests/view points are simply not appropriate. However, that does not mean that they should be banned/censored across the entire population.

There is also the side point that all NHS staff should be disciplined for using NHS computers for pornography or any other non-work realted activity.

(Oh an excellent post, SolidGoldBrass)

That is an interesting one regarding the pharmacist and the MAP. I've seen debates on ehre about doctors who are against abortion, and who will pass patients seeking one on to colleagues rather than refer them themselves. How do you feel about that?

I can see the GMC's problem, given this man read stories about child porn rather than downloaded images. Wonder why the six month suspension - what happens at the end of that period? What might have changed to persuade the GMC to strike him off or allow him back to work? The struck out text doesn't help here.

He may not have committed any crime but I wouldn't want a GP with a long standing interest in child porn, even written, treating my child. Or me, come to think of it.

(Not sure whether he'll be paid, depends whether he's an employee or not - if he's a partner in a practice I guess he'll still be entitled to a share of profits, depending on the contract between the partners, if he holds a PMS contract then it's the terms of his employment that matter.)

you have contradicted yourself amber and judged this GP (because we are not talking about the entire population here...) on being unfit to practice in his chosen profession purely because of something he likes to read

just like I have

haven't you ? Or have you other evidence that he is unfit to practice ?

If you met me in RL you would never believe I would make an argument for censorship, but in this instance I can't say 'it's fiction, no harm done'

I do think it does harm and I won't apologise for that, no matter how many people call me stupid.

farking hell

how can they prove he read them though? he might have them in his possesion,cant prove they have been read,

edam..he is more likely to be suspended on full pay/profits, than not

they can tell how many times each page has ben accessed

i agree with edam
and SGB i am not stupid and dont read miserylit

I just ignore sgb when she paints us all as stupid

I'm just not sure what SGB's point is in the context of this case...