I agree with @MissLucyEyelesbarrow
It's not just that the GMC aren't askign for it. It's that each decision feeds into the next. The panel will clearly listen closely to all the submissions, but equally by now they will have a pretty shrewd idea of the likely destination.
In the impairment decision they clearly say that the conduct is remediable. That insight - albeit currently inadequate insight - is developing. How it's written is pointing towards a sanction which allows the Doctor the opportunity to remediate and to return to practice.
Whether he takes that opportunity is clearly in his hands.
The rules are that the panel aren't there to punish. Their job is to protect patients, to promote and maintain proper standards, and to maintain the reputation of the profession. They are required to impose the least restrictive sanction that does all those things. They aren't allowed to erase if suspension is good enough.
If you asked me to write a theoretical determination with an erasure outcome then I could. I would be saying things like, "The panel considers that behavioural failings are very difficult to remedy and may reveal a deep seated attitudinal problem which is fundamentally incompatible with being in the profession. The panel were particularly concerned with the Vice article, which revealed an overwhelming lack of insight into the seriousness of your conduct and contempt for the role of the regulator." That would be pushing towards a conclusion that only erasure would do.
They haven't written that way.
Bottom line is they wouldn't have written the impairment decision in the way they have if they thought erasure was the inevitable outcome. Sure, something might have come up at stage 3 which then led that way (part of the art of writing these things is not boxing yourself into a cover) but it doesn't see to be like it has. So I just can't see that that outcome is in any way likely.