Dr Deplorable

[BoreOfWhabylon]

MPTS has now published details of the tribunal

www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-adrian-harrop-30-nov-21.pdf

I thought I couldn't get the site to work, but have now seen the document is a download Thanks, OP.

Fair enough:

36. The Tribunal concluded that a period of one month’s suspension would send an
    appropriate signal, whilst also allowing Dr Harrop the opportunity to further reflect on these
    proceedings and the findings of the Tribunal, as well as continue to develop his insight.

37. The Tribunal considered that this was the minimum sanction it could impose which
    would serve to uphold the overarching objective. It noted that Dr Harrop may not be able to
    return to General Practice immediately after the period of suspension due to the 2013
    Regulations. However, the Tribunal considered that the reputation of the profession as a
    whole is more important than the interests of any individual doctor, and a lesser sanction
    would simply be insufficient in this case.

38. The Tribunal was of the opinion that these proceedings had been a cathartic process
    for Dr Harrop and concluded that it was extremely unlikely that he would act similarly in the
    future. It therefore follows a longer period of suspension was not warranted and would be of
    detriment to the public interest.

39. The Tribunal was satisfied that a review of Dr Harrop’s case would be unnecessary, as
    Dr Harrop has insight, albeit not yet fully complete, and that the risk of repetition was low. It
    considered that a review would serve no purpose in marking the seriousness of Dr Harrop’s
    actions and upholding the second and third limbs of the overarching objective.

Determination on Immediate Order - 30/11/2021

1. Having determined to suspend Dr Harrop’s registration, the Tribunal has considered,

in accordance with Rule 17(2)(o) of the Rules, whether Dr Harrop’s registration should be subject to an immediate order. Submissions

1. On behalf of the GMC, Mr Donoghue submitted that an immediate order should be

imposed in this case. He submitted that whilst there are no public or patient safety concerns identified in this case, the nature of Dr Harrop’s misconduct is such that an immediate order is in the wider public interest.

1. Mr Donoghue submitted that an immediate order would make it clear that such

behaviour and misconduct are inconsistent with being a registered practitioner

Such behaviour and misconduct are inconsistent with being a registered practitioner.
But he can come back after a month?

Risk of repetition is low despite evidence of repetition during the tribunal itself?

I think this says a lot

"However, the Tribunal considered that the reputation of the profession as a
whole is more important than the interests of any individual doctor, and a lesser sanction would simply be insufficient in this case."

Close ranks, protect the "reputation of the profession", a month should be enough "as
Dr Harrop has insight, albeit not yet fully complete" but they thought it unlikely he would do it again.

I feel truly sorry for any women who have to be treated by Harrop, I hope wherever he ends up, there are some decent doctors who can be requested (and then those Drs have to bear the brunt of his failures).

It is interesting to compare the workings of the MPTS in different cases.

This GP had interim conditions imposed with a social media ban ordering him not to discuss covid 19 after he was accused of spreading misinformation.

One wonders why they didn't simply impose a similar ban on Dr Deplorable, perhaps back before he got totally out of hand. Though perhaps they tried and failed to rein him in.

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/962368

There is also another thread about a Dr who has been suspended for nine months, for what appears to include criminal behaviour. Perhaps he will not be able to demonstrate sufficient insight to enable him to be restored to the register any time soon.

If he steps out of line again he is gone- so I think a reasonable sanction, much as I dislike him. He's on notice！

Drs always, always close ranks. I'm a nurse and would have been kicked off the nursing register for behaviour like this, we are held to much higher standards and can get away with far less.

Just to clarify, I am absolutely delighted Dr Deplorable received a suspension, it was more than well deserved and I think he needed something as serious as this to make him stop. I was just interested to see that in another case a social media ban had been imposed, so the GMC/MPTS do have this as an option.

@DoubleYouOhEmAyEn

Such behaviour and misconduct are inconsistent with being a registered practitioner. But he can come back after a month?

The reality of a one month suspension is actually pretty harsh, as he'll look unemployable/risky to employ by anyone receiving his application, and the recruitment process is painfully slow as it is for new doctors. I'm not sure Brownlow Surgery in Liverpool would take him back just like that after a month?

Didn’t his previous surgery recently advertise for a GP?

That's a pretty serious accusation, has it been reported?

@EishetChayil

I hope your friend has reported this to the GMC. I'm sure that they would take it very seriously

I also think MNHQ will probably remove your post because, at this stage, I'm afraid it's an unsubstantiated allegation against a named individual.

“The Tribunal considered that Dr Harrop was good at articulating insight, but when the opportunity had arisen to demonstrate this – specifically in relation to the interview with VICE Global – he had failed to do so.”

My understanding at the time was that the tribunal couldn't consider the shenanigans with vice, or the photo with the 'terf spray' badge because they weren't included in the case they were considering. I'm pretty sure further complaints were made about that, so there might me more trouble up ahead.