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?

I don't know that story edam. Do you have a link ?

Edam - you're right, it was his home computer. I misinterpreted the paragraph about the Trust pursuing it, and took it to mean that he had used NHS computers. Skim reading with a 2 year old beside you is not always a good idea!

Agree with your previous post - the GMC are nothing if not inconsistent.

any, it's the MMR story - Wakefield is the doc who suggested there was a possibility of a link between MMR and autism and more research was needed. Endless threads on here about it.

Whatever one thinks about Wakefield and MMR, odd that he was struck off while the guy with the long-standing child porn habit was not.

oh right, probably why it passed me by, edam

MMR is way off my radar

it doesn't seem right to me either though

OldLadyKnowsNothing - what an appropriate name to go with your post!
Quote:"Aren't parents generally with their children, when at the GPs? What about GPs who download adult porn - should they see patients of the appropriate sex? "

I.... I am speechless.
So as a parent, I should feel fine and all honky-dory while a potential paedophile is examining my DS? There is a MASSIVE difference in the mindset of people who watch child porn to those who watch porn featuring adults.

No way. No matter what angle the media put on it, the guts of the story is that he downloaded paedophilia material and that would be enough for me to take my child to a different doctor.

I wouldnt' throw a brick through his window or spray paedophile on his car, but I certainly wouldn't shrug and continue taking my children to a doctor like that.

edam - good call.

For me the bottom line would be as follows: Would a) I be happy to be examined by this doctor? b) my two daughters to be examined by him? c)anyone else I know?

show me anyone AT ALL who would be happy to be examined by this doctor and I'll give you a reason not to strike him off. Otherwise bin him off pronto.

I do find there is a massive discrepancy in the way different classes of paedophile are treated though; it seems the ordinary joe cannot get away with it, yet the film director (Polanski) or the rock star (Townshend) garners sympathy and support among their venerated peer group pals.

Having said that I hear old Pete didn't do too well in the US just recently - lots of anti sex offender protests at his gigs and the like. Poor, poor pete.

My OP. Lots of interesting replies. Thank-you. Romeo and Juliet and Lolita always make an appearance in this argument. And rightly. I am liberal, think of myself as sophisticated and tolerant. But my original question was about informed consent. Are parents entitled to make a choice? This is a pragmatic question and not about Lolita. If there are 2 doctors on one day, and you have to take your son, which doctor are you going to choose? But this relies on parents knowing, and it appears in 6 months' time, they will not. And those parents who don't mind, are fine by me. I would never criticise another parent's choice.

It's really sooooo unfair, given that he was only 'researching' the topic

maisie ?

are you being ironic ?

I suspect the Department of Health was quite pleased that Brian Dear did it, though.

I am a journalist myself. Being charitable, I tend to assume BD thinks of himself as a crusader, rather than being out to damage Wakefield for the sake of it. Although I have no idea, never met the man (either of them). Have met a few zealots in my time though, all of 'em utterly convinced they were doing the right thing, and I would guess he's one of them before reaching for any more malevolent explanationa.

I probably agree with you about Wakefield, because the key issues were in the public domain already.

It does depend on the circumstances of each case, though. If, in the course of researching a story, I found someone was practising as a doctor when they weren't on the register, I'd tell the GMC. Used to edit a very reputable campaigning magazine and we regularly complained to the ASA or trading standards or regulators when we discovered dodgy operators.

(Actually IRL had a case where someone was treating patients and claiming they were a doctor when they weren't - one of the eminent doctors I contacted to double check the story made the complaint to the GMC.)

Yes, AF, I was being ironic!

i know the argument over the potential harming of children in the writing of such material has kinda passed, i have to say something.
The mere existence of any such material is harmful to children. it acts as a promotional tool to unjustifiable behaviours. The assumption that no harm was done because this was a fictional work is based upon the fact that it was indeed fictional, and ignores the possibility that a child may be harmed as an indirect result of this material. before i get flamed, i'm not in any way suggesting that reading such material might lead someone to commit an act they had never considered before.
i have worked with enough abused children to know the damage such abuse causes is massive, and as such i adopt a zero tolerance approach to child porn and abuse.
a doctor conductiong research by reading literature detailing abuse = utter bullshit. if a gp wants to research child abuse/porn they can approach children's services, police, nspcc for training and information.
also as a parent i told my ds that the only person who was allowed to touch his privates while he is a child is himself, or a doctor if he has a problem. this doctor has a position of trust, yet cannot be trusted. children are so so vulnerable and we as a society cannot accept there being a paedophile in a position of trust.

thank goodness, mais

mari...I totally agree, on all points

Agreed, maris. Even if this doc hasn't personally abused any individual children, I wouldn't want someone with his warped attitude or beliefs anywhere near my son or any other child.

Do you think the GMC read Mumsnet?

btw, if a doctor is suspended by the GMC they are not allowed to practice whatsoever and I doubt they would be suspended on full pay. And the suspension often gets extended at subsequent hearings for serious offences.