Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

So sorry you have got so behind.
Are there to be no sanctions?

Thanks for the explanation Motorina.

@MrsKeats

So sorry you have got so behind. Are there to be no sanctions?

Not there yet. This is stage one (findings of fact).

Tomorrow they start on stage two (was there misconduct, is he impaired now.)

If they find he is impaired it moves to stage three (sanction.)

Oh thanks so much,

Was there misconduct???
This is making me so angry again.

@MrsKeats

Was there misconduct??? This is making me so angry again.

That's the decision the panel will be making tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if anyone, including the defence, is in much doubt of the answer. But they have to formally make the decision to move to the next stage.

[quote YNK]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]
I keep seeing suspension or erasure from the register being described as a slap on the wrist. I don't think that being unable to practise your profession is a slap on the wrist TBH. It is not analogous to being sacked, because it prevents you working in all jobs in your field, not just for a particular employer. HCPs who have been erased from their register cannot work at all in their profession, and will find it very difficult to get any other job, because their work experience is too niche.

HCPs who are suspended lose their profession, their income and often their home and their marriage. That is a significant penalty, especially given that the standard of proof is substantially lower in a tribunal than in a criminal court. Doctors certainly don't regard referral to their professional body - let alone suspension - to be a slap on the wrist. 28 doctors died by suicide in 8 years, while awaiting GMC hearings.

You also need to bear in mind that many doctors before MPTS have behaved inappropriately because of mental illness, substance misuse or alcoholism, all of which are rife in healthcare. Of course, the public must be protected if their fitness to practise is impaired but, surely, if this can be achieved without suspension, that it in everyone's interests?

@happydappy2

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.

If I walked into a GP room and saw Harrop...

I don't know that I could leave, I'd feel so vulnerable.

Could you say to someone, outloud who vehemently thought the very core of you was bigotted "I dont want to be treated by you."

It's so tough. He's a community GP, knows all the staff who you might socially know, works with a doctor you might already know and like. Spoken to on many intimate and intrusive matters.

How many women enjoy labelling themselves as trouble makers, difficult women. How many would walk into the fire labelled "bigot."

Not sure that I could.

It's interesting to note that, overwhelmingly, the view in the professions is that the regulators ALWAYS take the view of the patients, are overwhelmingly unfair, and are OUT TO GET the doctor/nurse/health care professional.

And the view here is it's an old boys network where they will protect the doctor if they possibly can.

As @Signalbox says, my experience is everyone takes their role very seriously and tries to be very fair to both sides.

I absolutely get that WitnessE's posts here make for painful reading. We can all empathise with how awful it must be to be in her(?) shoes. But the panel has to weigh up the complainants evidence against the doctors evidence, and reach a decision which based on the evidence, is proportionate and manages any risks that that doctor poses.

They're not there to uncritically believe either side. If they get it wrong one way, an unsafe doctor continues working. If they get it wrong the other way, someone loses their ability to work which - as @MissLucyEyelesbarrow says - often means they lose their home and their relationship.

These are not decisions anyone involved takes lightly.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I have sympathy for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who find themselves in front of their registering bodies because of illnesses such addiction or other mental health issues.

What is unusual about Dr Harrop is that he has not behaved inappropriately as a result of impaired judgement while under the influence of illicit drugs or while in the depths of despair or while psychotic. His behaviour towards women is normal for him, when he is stone cold sober and in his right mind. That is his character.

And that is the issue.

Illness is a reasonable mitigating circumstance. He has no mitigation. He choose to behave as he did. That is far, far worse.

Just reading through the charges that are admitted and proven - pretty serious and damning.

I am hoping that by applying rigorous standards of evidence the "not proven" decisions mean that there is no wriggle room for AH. No opportunity to appeal because he has admitted all charges which will form the basis of the decision. I still hope the decision will have serious consequences for him.

I watched AH target E - it was sinister imo and I really wish it had gone the other way, but proving intent is really tricky when you don't have the full context.

What we need to take away from this, I think, is not to engage with TRAs. Engage with the ideas, criticise the movement, forget about the actors, they are bit part players. We have the good arguments. Actually we have the only real arguments, they just have rhetoric and feelings.

[quote Abigail12345654321]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I have sympathy for doctors, nurses and pharmacists who find themselves in front of their registering bodies because of illnesses such addiction or other mental health issues.

What is unusual about Dr Harrop is that he has not behaved inappropriately as a result of impaired judgement while under the influence of illicit drugs or while in the depths of despair or while psychotic. His behaviour towards women is normal for him, when he is stone cold sober and in his right mind. That is his character.

And that is the issue.

Illness is a reasonable mitigating circumstance. He has no mitigation. He choose to behave as he did. That is far, far worse.[/quote]
I don't disagree (on the basis of the evidence to which we have been party) about AH. I was making a more general point about describing MPTS sanctions as a slap on the wrist.

AH is also atypical in that he can probably work abroad for a private clinic, given his connections with a certain other MPTS-bothering doctor. This would not be true of most suspended/erased doctors, as most countries (quite rightly!) will only let you practise in their country if you are in good standing with the regulator in your own country. So I could not work in Australia or the US, for example, if I were suspended by the GMC. The Gender GP service appears to have found a way round that by operating out of places that don't have these rules.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Indeed, agreed!

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

Has it been confirmed the panel is all male?

@Motorina

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.

Thanks for this. It reminded me it isn't a complainants vs Harrop situation, it's his own regulator vs Harrop situation.

It looks a bit to me like they determined his overall behaviour was poor, but specific detriment to specific individuals wasn't proven, possibly because of irrelevant detail in statements and possibly because they perceived the arguments as heated on both sides.
And I don't think that Harrop admitting x, y and z was the key to those charges being proved; his counsel probably told him it wasn't worth arguing - and indeed arguing about whether a random person might find his online behaviour distasteful would have been good fun to watch but might have done him more damage overall.

I wonder if despite certain specifics not having been proven is that important? Surely part of the issue is that enough people perceived his actions to be intimidating (for example) and that in itself brings the profession into disrepute? And that he's admitted having poor self-control and an addiction (of sorts) to being validated by strangers?

I am now being called a liar and re-victimised all over social media.

I repeat. Never ever waste your time and energy reporting abusive male doctors to the GMC.

The process cannot be trusted.

I am hoping that by applying rigorous standards of evidence the "not proven" decisions mean that there is no wriggle room for AH. No opportunity to appeal because he has admitted all charges which will form the basis of the decision. I still hope the decision will have serious consequences for him.

This is what I'm hoping too. They've basically said he's made an arse out of himself, and he's admitted it. That his online persona is unacceptable. It's in the records that he had previous warnings. That numerous points were raised about non-compliance with social media policy.
And then the Vice article with its braggadocio, whilst the hearing was still underway - that's not a changed man.

It reminded me it isn't a complainants vs Harrop situation, it's his own regulator vs Harrop situation

A crucial point. Just like in criminal proceedings, witnesses are tools in the process: the process is not about them or for their benefit (apologies - I know that must sound really insensitive to the posters who were witnesses for AH's case, but unfortunately it's the truth), . The proceedings are not there to give them restitution. The MPTS tribunals exist solely to decide whether or not a doctor is fit to practise, and to determine appropriate measures if she is not.

WitnessE

Please step away from SM tonight (and going forward) it is a massive cesspit and is fuelled by the worst in people. Protect yourself. You and your loved ones know the truth, they are the ones that matter not some twerp on Twitter.

Yes. It was 3 men on the panel.

And it looks as though Dr Harrop’s defence was basically taking random tweets of mine responding to his abuse and claiming I deserved it and it was a heated debate. They didn’t give weight to the impact this had on me.

My statement detailed that I had been the victim of previous domestic assault and sexual violence. It also said that I had been treated for an anxiety adjustment disorder as a result of Dr Harrop & friends’ behaviour. These details were redacted from the panel but I don’t know whether the redacted or full statements were given to Ben Hunte and others, without my consent.

I was so continually provoked that I was intemperate at times. I’m posting here now to distract me from saying what I really want to say about certain individuals.

Sorry to dominate. I need to step away. I’m beyond distraught. From my admittedly subjective perspective it seems like the panel were very far from objective.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

It reminded me it isn't a complainants vs Harrop situation, it's his own regulator vs Harrop situation

A crucial point. Just like in criminal proceedings, witnesses are tools in the process: the process is not about them or for their benefit (apologies - I know that must sound really insensitive to the posters who were witnesses for AH's case, but unfortunately it's the truth), . The proceedings are not there to give them restitution. The MPTS tribunals exist solely to decide whether or not a doctor is fit to practise, and to determine appropriate measures if she is not.

I think there is enough that has been proved, on top of the various warnings and conversations beforehand, for the tribunal to determine that there should be some sanction.

That's what it looks like to me. And as pp said there's no wiggle room on the stuff he's admitted. It all depends on the apology and the promises to do better, all undermined by his Vice article and his "oops I'm on someone else's social media". It's not that hard to keep your head down for a while and keep schtum to stay in your job.

@WitnessE I've been the victim/witness in a sexual assault trial. I think the hardest thing is realising that the system isn't looking out for your interests. It doesn't actually give a shit about you. You're there as a witness in the prosecution case and, once they've taken your evidence, their interest in you is basically over.

I know, having been there, it feels very personal. It does feel that it's you against the perpetrator. As @MissLucyEyelesbarrow says, it isn't. It's the Crown against the criminal, or the regulator against the registrant. That's a really horrible thing to realise - because what's happened has turned your life upside down, and the prosecution are basically just viewing your suffering as a playing piece in their case.

I think trying to step away, as much as you can, is probably a really wise strategy.

@WitnessE

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I read this message, cannot understand why it was deleted

Me neither. I suspect this board is being watched by certain parties.