Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I'm so sorry E.
I'm afraid looking back through decisions made by the MPTS, doctors are untouchable unless convicted in the courts ie proof positive.
The only time they seem to attract any sanctions are if they lie on their timesheets or fail to turn up for work - offenses against other doctors.
Patients and the general public are fair game though.

For me this raises the question is what was the goal of the representative of the GMC? Was it to aim for a compromise position in which the doctor would feel admonished but not pushing things too far?

@PenguindreamsofDraco

Those reasons are interesting. Misogynistic...wholly inappropriate...highly offensive...plainly inappropriate... concerning...

Plus one 'not proved' is because he only sent 10-20 inappropriate tweets about E, rather than 'at least 38' as the GMC had asserted. So it's more about the GMC setting its stall too high, rather than disregarding E's evidence.

There's not a lot for Haddock to crow about there.

I agree with this. I've only read it superficially (it's been a loooooong day), but the tone is overwhelmingly one of disapproval.

Also, sorry. I just want to get my side out there.

There was no heated debate going on when he randomly changed his banners to my location.

He suddenly changed his location and said he had been helping Surrey police with their enquiries. He then denied that his speaking to Surrey police had anything to do with me and called me paranoid.

Then he changed his banner repeatedly so that he appeared closer and closer.

Their focus is to maintain public confidence in the profession - to the extent they will cover for individual doctors and accept their statements at face value.
IMMSMC, there was one who was reported by a pharmacist for collecting opiates he had prescribed for a 'looked after' child and investigations showed he had done so for several patients collecting the opiates himself. None of these patients were aware of these prescriptions and had no medical need for them.
I believe he admitted to self administering some of the drugs and claimed to have destroyed the bulk of them - this was accepted without any further investigation.
The fact he took enormous risk to fraudulently obtain opiates which he claims to have immediately destroyed was accepted at face value.
They look after their own.

IMMSMC, there was one who was reported by a pharmacist for collecting opiates he had prescribed for a 'looked after' child and investigations showed he had done so for several patients collecting the opiates himself. None of these patients were aware of these prescriptions and had no medical need for them.

@YNK could you tell me the source or case name for this please?

Redactions are normally agreed by both sides. Where there's a dispute, the panel would decide, either at a preliminary meeting before the main hearing or during the hearing itself.

For clarity, because I've been called on it, by 'both sides' I mean 'both barristers'. I can't imagine the witnesses would have been asked.

As a general principle, the regulators aren't places for the victims of a clinician to seek redress. That's what the civil courts are for - for people to sue and seek damages. They're there to protect the wider public and set standards for doctors, and to police breaches of those standards.

The victims are really just there as witnesses, which I appreciate must feel monumentally shit, but is the way the system works.

That's what the civil courts are for - for people to sue and seek damages

Ready to dig.

I will dig too. I'm so angry on your behalf E

No digging required but thank you

I just don’t know if I can cope with revisiting it again. I feel utterly broken.

@Motorina

IMMSMC, there was one who was reported by a pharmacist for collecting opiates he had prescribed for a 'looked after' child and investigations showed he had done so for several patients collecting the opiates himself. None of these patients were aware of these prescriptions and had no medical need for them.

@YNK could you tell me the source or case name for this please?

I have a brain injury but remember it from trawling through previous decisions on the GMC site after they refused to investigate a doctor for me. There are many more like it where they kept their jobs after a slap on the wrist.

Couldn't have been a pharmacist then - they're regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council, not the GMC.

@YNK and @Motorina, I wonder if it was this one?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57634666

It's very 'bare bones' reporting but might ring a bell.

They look after their own.

I'm really sorry to hear about everyone's experiences but I thought most GMC employees and MPTS aren't doctors? Not being goady, honestly, I was just wondering?

It may have been this one
www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-madappuliaratchige-fernando-1-oct-21.pdf

If so, suspended for 12 months. The suspension is to be reviewed and he'll only be let back on if - if! - he convinces another panel he's remediated. That doesn't seem like an outcome where the profession is closing ranks and protecting it's own?

I have to admit I would personally be afraid if I ever had to seek medical treatment from someone like AH. Someone who wears a badge which depicts a spray bottle containing chemicals to be sprayed on people whose views differ from his/hers. The target of the spray seems to be those whose views differ in that they are normal, mainstream and evidence based scientific fact. Rather than what appears to be ideologically driven and unsubstantiated beliefs. I personally don't know if I'd quite trust someone like that..

I wonder if the lads on the panel diminished the severity and impact of AH's actions because his main targets have been women?

[quote YNK]It may have been this one
www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-madappuliaratchige-fernando-1-oct-21.pdf[/quote]
Thank you.

He was erased from the register. The law is that, if you're erased you can apply for reinstatement after 5 years. I have views on this, but that's the law.

It in fact took him 8 years before he'd got enough evidence to convince a panel that he'd fixed the failings which got him struck off. That's 8 years not able to work as a doctor which, again doesn't strike me as the system protecting it's own or a slap on the wrist.

If you look through decisions it's rare for a doctor to get more than a slap on the wrist.
Harrop is quite correct in telling other doctors to admit what they can't hide and say sorry and claim it as a learning experience.

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals?page=8#decisionsTabLink

[quote YNK]It may have been this one
www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-madappuliaratchige-fernando-1-oct-21.pdf[/quote]
This one was erased from the medical register for 8 years. (He had to show a significant degree of genuine rehabilitation, remorse and therapy to be restored to it - interesting reading though in relation to AH.)

If I walked into a consulting room and saw Adrian Harrop I would leave immediately. I would not feel safe knowing how he has behaved and the fact he promotes off label drugs to minors. His association with SH is also worrying, bearing in mind the recent pictures of them which came to light. Their disregard and disdain to women is horrible.

I think it's unwise to draw too many conclusions about what we heard today.

Whilst I sympathise and understand the frustration/anger/disappointment some of the witnesses are feeling over certain decisions today, he's still got one hell of a rap sheet to account for.

I wouldn't want AH as my doctor either.

And his cynical tweet about how to 'get off' a complaint to the GMC speaks for itself. Did the MPTS panel ever see that tweet, do we know for sure?

In my experience panels think very carefully about these decisions and are not at all interested in "protecting their own". It's a lot different seeing these things played out on twitter and being presented with it as evidence at a hearing. Those panel members will have not been exposed to any of Harrop's behaviour or any of the commentary surrounding

Those panel members will have not been exposed to any of Harrop's behaviour or any of the commentary surrounding.

And seemingly no empathy or understanding for those he targeted.

You’ll forgive me for my lack of faith in the process. For me it was about keeping women safe and the only redress I had.

Still. According to the MPTS, they receive over 10,000 complaints every year, of which 200 end up at tribunal.

There are also 250,000 doctors in the U.K. the overwhelming majority of who are safe.