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?

shes too busy shagging

I haven't contradicted myself at all. I don't see the world in black and white - been round the block two many times for that lol.

To go back to my earlier example - I would never suggest that the pharmacist should be banned from stating their point of view regarding the morning after pill on the internet. Far from it. I'm of the "I don't agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.

Some things are appropriate in some professions and some are not.

Right, of to do more things in RL. Toodle pip.

you have contradicted yourself amber

I knew that you would

Pharmacists have an ethics clause which allows them to not supply the contaceptive pill or MAP if it goes against their beliefs - although they are obliged to tell someone where a supply may be obtained.

Isn't that the whole issue, Amber? Exactly what has your point been in this thread if you conclude your arguement by agreeing with the GMC?

I think Amber's point was that we shouldn't demonise people for their thought processes and that they are perfectly entitled to fantasise about having sex with children

but if they do...they should lose their job...

yup, that's about the extent of it

Seems so.

hypocritical ?? nah ....

Although I really wouldn't be comfortable with a GP who has accessed child porn (even fictional) it is dodgy ground. I assume in this case he was getting sexual gratification from it, which to me is an obvious sign that he shouldn't be allowed near kids.

However, on a broader scale, there are some extremely graphic novels out there dealing with subjects such as child porn/abuse/etc, they may not be written with gratification in mind, but can be used as such. In which case, how do you distinguish between people that are reading them as fiction and people that are using them for gratification?

Eg. Say there is a book with a very graphic rape scene. Person A reads it for the writing style, Person B reads it to get off. Do you strike Person A off of their job because they might have found it arousing?

Just to reiterate, if evidence suggests the GP in the OP was using it because he finds child abuse arousing then he really shouldn't be working anywhere near children. I just don't think reading fiction, no matter how graphic, is the best indicator of child abuse. Because it all comes down to intention.

kaloki..this GP accessed this type of fiction over a period of 4 years

a bit of curiosity is one thing

using NHS equipment to access it (I work in the NHS...it is very clear what your punishment will be if you are caught accessing inappropriate stuff, btw)...shows a level of compulsion and/or entitlement that is very, very worrying in this situation

I read that, which is why I said he shouldn't be near children. It's terrifying to think he got away with it for so long, though I'm glad he doesn't appear to have acted on it!

I think one of the key points here is the fact that he accessed this kind of material on a regular basis for 4 years. This isn't a sneaky read of Lolita on your lunch break after you've read a Chris Ryan and before moving onto Charles Dickens.

The fact that he also used NHS computers to access the stuff is a disciplinary matter regardless.

precisely, dittany

but this is how the GMC appears to work, unfortunately

it will be reviewed in 6 months and he will be suspended again, unless something new comes to light

all on full pay, of course

Most GPs are self employed. He will get no pay. However I imagine that no health authority will sign a contract with him.

RT, we don't know the individual financial circumstances in this situation

but a GP in my area was suspended for 4 years on full pay

he was assessed and re-suspended at 6 monthly intervals for the whole of that time

then eventually struck off when the local MP lobbied to put an end to the situation

I really don't have faith in the GMC to do the right thing, tbh

No I would not be happy to take my children to him!

anyfucker, was the GP in your area a partner in a practice, or an employee of practice or an NHS trust? Am just puzzled as to how a GP can be suspended on full pay for years on end. I know it happens with consultants, but they are employees while GPs are (traditionally) independent contractors.

Btw, I think the NHS computer thing is a red herring, the notes someone linked to said this was his home computer.

As for thought crimes, I think the GMC verdict says that this was definitely serious pornography over a period of four years, so not really comparable to someone picking up a copy of Lolita.

hang on edam...will try to find out

edam, link here

it was 3 years, not 4

my mistake, but my point is the same

Interesting. I'd imagine he was an independent contractor if he'd been working at the same surgery for 19 years. The PCT pays the practice a sum per head for each patient registered and these days there are various different payments for meeting quality targets like getting all your diabetic or COPD patients on a register and giving them regular checks, or ensuring x % of female patients have smear tests.

So while the practice would still be paid for caring for all the registered patients, I'm struggling to see how the PCT paid him personally. He may well have been entitled to a share of the practice profits under a partnership agreement, I guess.

I dunno, am not an expert edam

but there it is, in black and white

and it stuck in my mind (like it would)

obviously the circs of his suspension were different, but still, paid 300k for sitting on his arse for 3 years

nice work !

a gp whom we used to use did this

he just kept moving about after it came to light, having been suspended and investigated. and his wife was a bloody child pshycologist.

i certainly wouldnt want to use a gp who had done this. i cannot beleive that this is deemed something that wouldnt interfere with his ability to do the job. was this gp not prosecuted?

The CPS decided not to prosecute. The GMC have no say in if he is suspended on fulkl pay or not. They just say 'you are suspended'. It depends on the terms of his contract with the PCT/his practice whether he gets paid or not.
They will review his case in another 6 months and he will have to bring evidence to prove to the GMC that he's all better and everything is pink & fluffy. The GMC (hopefully) will see through him and his legal team and renew the suspension order. With any luck he'll take himself off the register and nobody will have to see him again.

Anyone else think it's outrageous that the GMC struck Andrew Wakefield off for his research into bowel disease and autism, but lets a GP who has a child porn habit stay on the register?