Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

Can I ask if this guy is an actual practicing medical doctor?

@Manderleyagain

It was interesting that harrop's witness said that patients probably don't know about harrop's twittering, or the complaints against him because they ask for him by name. She didn't say it obviously doesn't effect how the public see him because patients still ask, her go to thought was that meant they probably don't know.

Or arguably that some patients deliberately ask for him by name because of his known views.

I wonder how many people have specifically registered with that practice because they believe (rightly or wrongly) they will have access to a doctor who won't question their gender dysphoria (or seek to ascertain if it's symptomatic of wider issues) but affirm it.

There is a counter argument of course, that if you know a particular doctor is a specialist or has a specific interest in xyz condition then why wouldn't you gravitate to their care?

@doublemonkey

Can I ask if this guy is an actual practicing medical doctor?

Yes - he's a practicing GP.

Will there be any scrutiny by the GMC of his medical practice and patient care?

What said suspects are either deliberately failing, or are not bright enough, to understand is that:

(1) A tribunal would still be appropriate were Dr Harrop GC.

(2) It doesn't matter if all four witnesses are deemed not credible (and no-one has been accused of lying) because it is not about their conduct. Dr Harrop made a choice to engage to the point of circumventing blocks.

It doesn't matter how "provocative" a witness (or indeed, anyone) is. If you are representing yourself as a GP and doing things like putting your registration number in your profile, you should be able to stop the "red mist" descending and not be carried away by "suboptimal thinking" caused by a "dopamine hit."

Exactly the same complaints would be made were he gender critical.

@EmpressaurusWitchDoesntBurn, I did wonder if the Chair might be edging toward giving advice in that area, i.e. anonymise your social media if you can't guarantee you can control yourself on it as a doctor.

But then that raises rather too many further unfomfortable questions, doesn't it?

Thanks all for continued sterling work translating the legalese and tribunalities for the masses!

Will there be any scrutiny by the GMC of his medical practice and patient care?

No none of the allegations related to patient care.

I did wonder if the Chair might be edging toward giving advice in that area, i.e. anonymise your social media if you can't guarantee you can control yourself on it as a doctor.

It wouldn't be the job of a fitness to practice committee to advise a doctor to anonymise their social media. And I don't even think that is a condition that they would make. The GMC have social media guidance and it is up to registrants to follow that guidance.

@Signalbox

Will there be any scrutiny by the GMC of his medical practice and patient care?

No none of the allegations related to patient care.

Surely if he's up before a fitness to practice panel they would at the very least pull some patient files from said practice?

If the tribunal are not allowed to read the Vice article are they going to take his word for it that it contains an apology to his victims for his behaviour?

Also. The F-word. Wise or not (and I am not going there) it was said in response to a pile on about penguins at London zoo. Nothing to do with Harrop or the trans ‘debate’ either.

It was in June 2020. An entire YEAR after he admitted talking about looking up my Insta which was only unlocked for 2 days for my dad to get in.

Timeline: May 2019: I complain about doxing received courtesy of an abusive blog,

Harrop: she wasn’t doxed I’ve been shown by Barrie Drewitt Barlow all her kids info

Me: that’s creepy and unsettling, how dare he

Harrop: tags in my police, council, local press - help help she’s unstable and I, a doctor am worried about her kids because of her anger.

MPTS: she said a mean word a year later and some other things we don’t approve of so we don’t believe that she was all that upset.Changing a location to be near her is a bit unseemly but she provoked him. Reader, I didn’t. It happened on the weekend I started receiving pizza orders again.

So the subsequent decisions are based on an misapprehension of facts and what facts there are, are not being allowed to be looked at. Vice article, TERF spray badge etc.

No they only look at the allegations. Nobody has suggested his care of gp patients is deficient.

Surely if he's up before a fitness to practice panel they would at the very least pull some patient files from said practice?

Not if no concerns have been raised in respect of his clinical practice.
They don't tend to go looking for problems.

I know with my regulator, one of the first things they do is write to the registrant and say, "Who have you worked for in the past few years?"

And then they write to all those employers and say, "A complaint's come in. Is there anything we should know?"

So I'm guessing that the GP practice he works at would have had such a letter.

If they'd replied saying, "No, all good" then I suspect that would be that. If they replied saying, "Actually, he's a bit shit clinically. Can't tell the pointy end of the needle from the blunt one. Keeps trying to stick his stethoscope up the patient's nose, and prescribes everyone 'the little blue pills' instead of proper drugs" then I assume they would have probed deeper.

This is all pure speculation, though. As others have said there are no allegations regarding his clinical care, so the panel have to assume he's competent and safe.

You can give them all the training. What you can't do is make it go in and affect their choices and thinking - that relies on a sensitive, reflective practitioner with good judgement.

Two verbal warnings and two written warnings so far work much the same way. You can make them..... you can't do anything to ensure they make a difference to the behaviour in question if the practitioner chooses not to or is not able to respond.

@witnessE
So sorry this has happened. I thought that that Dr H and his barrister skated very close to the line in the manipulations and evasions they made. I know many people feel the same and want to support you. I do worrry though that lots of people getting on to the GMC may confirm the orchestrated campaign thing. Might it be more useful for you to write a short and beautiful( like your last post) letter to the GMC barrister, or prepare the same info as a a signed affidavit. They are still deliberating and you have been so misrepresented. If neither is possible, then please take a holiday from it. You have suffered enough. I am burning with indignation and heartbreak at the Tribunal response to the “ catholic cunt” comment. I can’t believe that isn’t a hate crime. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know something about courts, and I would say keep it very short and factual so that dr H can be asked is this true?
Wishing you all the best.

There is very little research available to my (limited) knowledge about Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, which is concerning regarding the swell in numbers of mainly females with AS spectrum disorders presenting suddenly as trans.
Is it an internet fueled social contagion or a result of affirmative treatment?
This discussion and prognosis hasn't even got off the ground yet.

@Zebracat - I'd bet the farm Dr Christian has had way more complaints than Dr H. I don't think he can claim 'orchestration'. Well, I mean he can, but it's a bit of a stretch.

@Motorina

I know with my regulator, one of the first things they do is write to the registrant and say, "Who have you worked for in the past few years?"

And then they write to all those employers and say, "A complaint's come in. Is there anything we should know?"

So I'm guessing that the GP practice he works at would have had such a letter.

If they'd replied saying, "No, all good" then I suspect that would be that. If they replied saying, "Actually, he's a bit shit clinically. Can't tell the pointy end of the needle from the blunt one. Keeps trying to stick his stethoscope up the patient's nose, and prescribes everyone 'the little blue pills' instead of proper drugs" then I assume they would have probed deeper.

This is all pure speculation, though. As others have said there are no allegations regarding his clinical care, so the panel have to assume he's competent and safe.

Yes, this happens automatically if there is a GMC investigation - I have received several queries of this type in my managerial role, and that was for cases that got nowhere near MPTS. AH"s employers will have been contacted and specifically asked about patient complaints, as well as general concerns.

As discussed on earlier threads, a doctor can be a raging arsehole in his personal life and/or to colleagues, and still be a good clinician, who behaves appropriately with patients. We don't know whether this is true of AH, but it could be. IME, doctors with his type of insecure vanity tend to be nice to patients because they want the patients' gratitude.

[quote Zebracat]@witnessE
So sorry this has happened. I thought that that Dr H and his barrister skated very close to the line in the manipulations and evasions they made. I know many people feel the same and want to support you. I do worrry though that lots of people getting on to the GMC may confirm the orchestrated campaign thing. Might it be more useful for you to write a short and beautiful( like your last post) letter to the GMC barrister, or prepare the same info as a a signed affidavit. They are still deliberating and you have been so misrepresented. If neither is possible, then please take a holiday from it. You have suffered enough. I am burning with indignation and heartbreak at the Tribunal response to the “ catholic cunt” comment. I can’t believe that isn’t a hate crime. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know something about courts, and I would say keep it very short and factual so that dr H can be asked is this true?
Wishing you all the best.[/quote]
Oh god well said!

So sorry for what you've been put through E, be good to yourself and let us carry the anger for you, if we can.

I think this thread needs to steer well clear of any suggestion that AH has been anything other than professional in his dealing with patients.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.

As for this concern re: an orchestrated campaign, it simply doesn't hold water.

Many people made complaints because AH made a conscious choice to raise his profile though social and mainstream media, ergo thousands of people were exposed to his views/tweets and a significant proportion objected to the tweets/re-tweets he posted** and referred them to the GMC.

The proven charges would still be valid if only 4 people had complained. As would the objections to the Vice article.

@Zebracat I am burning with indignation and heartbreak at the Tribunal response to the “ catholic cunt” comment

Can you please tell me who originally made that comment, and what was the response (very roughly). I am absolutely flabbergasted at the depths.

Do they take an oath to tell the truth and is there any comeback for perjury? Just say someone gave an reason for something which was patently untrue. Say s/he attributed their action to something which occurred after their action?

Also, @Motorina you're wonderful , just on the regulator contacting the employer. DE admitted that the profession was in a bad way. That may mean they'd overlook anything that may lose them staff. It would be more in their interests to say 'nothing to see, no problem at all'.

@Cailleach1
Sorry I don’t know who said this. Just that Dr H retweeted it.