Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

To be fair, which is tough, VICE were publishing Dr Harrop’s defence which is why they needed to see the docs.

What they did not need to do is cause upset to the witnesses by stating that they had seen everything and gratuitously enabling jigsaw identification.

@BreadInCaptivity

To be honest, I think before chasing down different avenues, it's far better to simply wait and see what the outcome of the Tribunal is.

It's possible that there may be little need for making any further/different complaints.

I agree. I also think some of the speculation and discussion is inadvisable at present. We have all the time in the world . Let's see how this stage turns out first.

@Northernlurker upthread has pointed out (as have I in the past) how it can be useful to look at previous cases that have come before the MPTS to see how decisions have been made.
www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals. If you scroll back a couple of months, you will see that each one has a pdf attached detailing how decisions are made.

One thing that is immediately apparent is that the panel takes very seriously whether the doctor has demonstrated insight and evidenced that he or she has taken steps to address any shortcomings. It is not enough to say "I'm very sorry and I won't do it again".

If anyone is interested they may want to look at this case.

www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-kristen-laing-10-sep-21.pdf

It's interesting because it demonstrates the level of reflection and remorse required for a tribunal to consider you are fit to practice.

Compare and contrast to what we evidence we have seen produced by AH in this regard.

The difference here is that this Dr had been suspended for 1 year and this tribunal was considering reinstating her licence.

However, there is a parallel in that as with AH the proven charges did not concern clinical ability ie there was no suggestion that the person was not in a clinical sense a "good" doctor.

The case was all about character and brining the profession into disrepute.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra

To be fair, which is tough, VICE were publishing Dr Harrop’s defence which is why they needed to see the docs.

What they did not need to do is cause upset to the witnesses by stating that they had seen everything and gratuitously enabling jigsaw identification.

Yes, but we're talking about idiotic Ben Hunte here, so...

I agree. I also think some of the speculation and discussion is inadvisable at present. We have all the time in the world smile. Let's see how this stage turns out first

Agree. Which is part of my point about AH and the leak to Vice. We don't know that he did it and, even if he did, he may not have broken any rules. Whatever we may think of the leak, we need to be mindful to avoid defamation, or MNHQ will have no choice but to pull the thread.

@BreadInCaptivity that's a really interesting and illustrative case you linked to.

I was also struck by this bit
23. Dr Laing stated that, after the 2020 Tribunal, she had seen for herself the public’s response to her behaviour by looking at the comments to articles about her online. Despite this being very uncomfortable she said that it enhanced her insight into the situation greatly. It highlighted the degree of trust the public puts in doctors and the impact her actions had on that trust.
We know that the press are interested - the Mail reported on the first day of the Tribunal. I fully expect that, whatever the outcome, there will be more reporting once it is over re charges, tweets, etc.

I await the ruling with great interest.

Meanwhile, the published case linked by @BreadInCaptivity re Dr KL is fascinating - as Bread says, you see the very significant amount of weight the Panel attaches to the concepts of public confidence in the profession, genuine self-reflection and remediation on the part of the doctor, and probity.

That case is very interesting, especially the bit about how the Dr felt when she saw the online comments about herself.

Thank you @BreadInCaptivity

You're welcome.

One thing that particularly stuck me was when this Dr referred to the (very substantial 13 page essay on her regret/remorse) that she'd submitted in the first tribunal where she was suspended and now reflected that she had "wrongly focused on herself".

Then this response from the panel where she was reinstated.

"She set out in her reflections the ways in which her dishonest conduct impacted upon patients, the profession more widely, and herself. It was clear to the Tribunal that she has now developed a strong understanding of the gravity of her behaviour and its impact upon public confidence in the profession."

Now think about the questions AH's witness was asked in relation to the two conversations they had with AH:

"Has AH ever discussed how his actions have affected the public and public perception of the profession. DE has gone back to talking about how upset AH was himself. DE was concerned about AH’s mental health.

Did AH ever consider the impact of his actions on his own patients? DE, “no.”

DE feels his patients don’t know about it because they specifically ask for him. GP asks EX did he ever discuss the impact on the twitter users, the other persons he was engaged with. Was there any expression of remorse?

“Yes.” GP asked specifically; Erm, I don’t recall it specifically being mentioned- there wasn’t any individuals or any names mentioned."

Again compare and contrast....

It all depends upon how seriously the tribunal views the charges Dr H admitted to. They do not seem to believe that the witnesses were impacted.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra

It all depends upon how seriously the tribunal views the charges Dr H admitted to. They do not seem to believe that the witnesses were impacted.

Indeed.

The first question is whether his fitness to practice was impaired as a result of the proven charges.

If the answer is no, then he has nothing to be remorseful about.

But many charges were found proven, including the attempt to intimidate witness A.

Again in contrasting the case above, of course AH has not been found guilty in a criminal court - that's not the source of the accusation he brought the profession into disrepute.

In that case there was one "big" issue that did make the Scottish press.

But what we've seen with AH is many proven charges that breached GMC SM guidelines, over a prolonged period of time (some of which occurred after two official warnings about his online conduct) on a platform with millions of users, where he himself had built up quite a substantial personal following.

It's an interesting topic to consider which case hypothetically had the widest reach and the most impact on public/patient perception of the profession.

One thing that particularly stuck me was when this Dr referred to the (very substantial 13 page essay on her regret/remorse) that she'd submitted in the first tribunal where she was suspended and now reflected that she had "wrongly focused on herself".

That link was very interesting (thank you) and you're right, the degree of self-reflection in Laing's case seems to be quite substantial.

[quote Motorina]@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant no updates expected til Monday lunchtime. Come on in though. There's tea and cake and chatting.[/quote]
Wot no gin?

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbra loving the name, was there no space to add "and a beanie" ?

@DrLouiseJMoody

The witnesses have had confidentiality impressed upon them throughout. GMC correspondence - even simple update emails - stated that there was an expectation of confidentiality during proceedings with a caution not to discuss matters publicly or with others wherever possible. My understanding is that, whilst it would not be unlawful to break that, it would show very poor judgement. Had the witnesses given an interview mid-proceedings then that would, not unreasonably, be construed as an "orchestrated campaign." They have not. Instead their autonomy was violated by the disclosure of confidential and sensitive information to third parties including a male who has a lengthy history of causing difficulties for numerous people. I consider it deeply abusive behaviour and yet more evidence of someone who doesn't grasp boundaries.

I fully expect that, once the decision is made, that the witnesses will be saying much more.

Can a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed. Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?

Can an a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed.
Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?

Again I think it's best to wait for the outcome of the tribunal before trying to pre-empt it by starting "round 2".

Secondly I'd also suggest that mass complaints only serve to support AH's allegations of an organised conspiracy against him.

@BreadInCaptivity

*Can an a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed. Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?*

Again I think it's best to wait for the outcome of the tribunal before trying to pre-empt it by starting "round 2".

Secondly I'd also suggest that mass complaints only serve to support AH's allegations of an organised conspiracy against him.

Yeah soz, replied to a post a few pages ago then caught up with the let's not speculate thing. Wont do it again. Anyone opened the gin yet? Its been a bloody long week.

@BreadInCaptivity

*Can an a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed. Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?*

Again I think it's best to wait for the outcome of the tribunal before trying to pre-empt it by starting "round 2".

Secondly I'd also suggest that mass complaints only serve to support AH's allegations of an organised conspiracy against him.

This.

Not to mention, from what I gather, the witnesses are women who have already been thoroughly stressed and re distressed by the process of this first tribunal. As with women who have been raped, as with mothers fighting family courts against partners using the legal process to continue abuse, as with women standing up to vexatious political policing and to abuse and harassment in their job roles, I would never encourage those women to engage further than they feel able or willing to do because it is bloody hell on them to try and get justice at the moment in the UK system.

@BreadInCaptivity

*Can an a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed. Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?*

Again I think it's best to wait for the outcome of the tribunal before trying to pre-empt it by starting "round 2".

Secondly I'd also suggest that mass complaints only serve to support AH's allegations of an organised conspiracy against him.

Agree.

From what the witnesses have said, it sounds as if the advice they were given by the GMC on the confidentiality of their statements may have been misleading. The very understandable concerns about this are probably better directed at the GMC, rather than AH. I absolutely agree with witnesses that it is a deterrent to the public making complaints against doctors, if they think they are giving a statement in confidence, only to find that the doctor is actually entitled to share it. The right of doctors to share the statements is (as I understand it as a non-lawyer) enshrined in law, but the guidance that the GMC gives witnesses must reflect this. It's ironic that an organisation that is forever lecturing doctors on the importance of properly informed consent does not seem to have ensured this for the witnesses.

Is this any better?

Can an a new tribunal be started on this alone, would witnesses need an effort by the prosecco stormfront. Pretty sure we can all do our bit if needed. Or possibly the thousands of women who already reported it last week have set it in motion?

As others have pointed out, this is not the witnesses against Harrop. This is the GMC against Harrop.

Decisions on whether to bring another hearing will be made by the GMC, not the witnesses.

If the GMC bring another hearing, they will fund it. Ironically, that will be funded out of the annual retention fees paid by doctors, including Harrop.

There is no need to fund raise.

There is nothing that the general public can do to influence this decision.

I agree with those who have said the best thing to do at this stage is to wait and see what happens next week. And drink tea (or gin...) in the interim.

The panel may not be aware, but the GMC will most definitely be aware of the strength of public feeling regarding Dr Harrop’s conduct.

It’s why I was asking about whether they have the option to appeal which would be the first option, but as Motorina says, that is their call and it would need to be signed off by a panel, going by the blurb on their website.

I agree also with the point about informing the witnesses. I’m guessing that it didn’t occur to them to tell the witnesses that their statements could be shared with people outside of the legal team, because this has never previously happened.

Ethics is certainly becoming an old fashioned concept.

Has anyone yet asked why A.H. isn't being hauled over the coals by the GMC for going against everything he was taught in medical school, by trenchantly insisting that humans can change sex just by a thought in their heads?

Apologies if this has already been asked, but there are many dozens of pages of posts on the three threads...