Helen Webberley cleared.

[SunbowRainshine31]

Today, I celebrate the news that my appeal was successful and the proceedings are over. Even after intense scrutiny of my work and over a hundred allegations, my fitness to practise medicine has not been found to be impaired, I have no restrictions on my practice and I can resume my life-saving work. The case ends today and the proceedings are over.
The stringent analysis of this case will only serve to assist other doctors wanting to provide care for their trans patients. If I can develop the skills to help this group of patients then so can they. I am simply a well-meaning, well-educated GP who was willing to learn how best to provide this care and I was brave enough to stand against the outdated NHS model of care which is evidently not fit for purpose in its current state.

https://www.gendergp.com/helen-webberley-statement-gmc/?tw=1

Well done, Dr Frankenstein.

Ghoul

That is hideous. How is this woman considered fit to practice?

And the rest of us recognise the GMC is not fit for purpose and makes unfair, irrational decisions especially against BAME doctors.

Amongst the GPs I know and wider professional circles the words ‘barge’ and ‘pole’ frequently come up whenever GenderGP is mentioned.

They’re not afraid of trying to coerce GPs who refuse them by sending letters talking about duty of care to patients, risk of mental health issues and suicide on trans people and actually have the nerve to quote GMC edicts at them too.

How grim.

Is this the GMC?

Does she still have her criminal conviction?

This is not the GMC's fault (for once). Read Webberley's statement:

The GMC’s case was that I should be erased from the medical register and not be able to work as a doctor again.

Due to their general uselessness, the GMC have had the power to erase doctors from the medical register removed from them. These decisions are now made by an independent tribunal. It's similar to a court - the GMC presents its case like the prosecution in a court case, and the doctor's lawyers present her defence.

The tribunal has its own biases, like all judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, but it is genuinely independent of the GMC. Tribunal decisions often go against the GMC.

In this case, the GMC wanted Webberley struck off for life, but the Tribunal said no.

Bit childish. Its an important discussion point.

She was convicted of running an illegal clinic, so she still has a criminal conviction (I don't think she appealed that case).

At the same time as the prosecution for running an illegal clinic she was investigated for prescribing testosterone to girls as young as 12. She admits to that in this BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41213534

So if she is now cleared to practise again, can she go back to prescribing opposite-sex hormones to children?

Urgh.

The GMC were - and probably are still - Stonewall champions and are therefore required for such purposes to adhere to Stonewall's demands or face public criticism.

See above - the GMC wanted her struck off the medical register for life.

In some ways it could be a good thing that she’ll now be officially responsible for prescribing again.

GenderGP have been able to operate due to a Romanian doctor (who seems to specialise in dermatology and aesthetic injectables, eg botox and fillers) and an Egyptian doctor.

When something inevitably goes tits up for a vulnerable patient, GMC will be able to have another go at getting her struck off.

The other doctors are out of reach.

Female customers on GenderGP testosterone prescriptions regularly complain online about lack of monitoring leading to late diagnosis of polycythemia and others blood related issues

Still got a criminal conviction though, op. Not sure any parent should be running to you for help.

I'm not sure I want anyone with a criminal conviction as serious as running an illegal clinic working in the NHS.

OMG so now she can go back to prescribing testosterone to 12 year old girls with no restriction. What a disaster.

'I am simply a well-meaning, well-educated GP'

😶

Congratulations Helen. Can you explain how it is ok to prescribe ‘puberty blockers’, describing them as a way of pausing puberty when there are now so many examples of the enormous harm they can do? And explain why affirmative care is an appropriate pathway when that has been discredited by the Cass review (and the study affirmative care is based on has been ripped to shreds)?

This article quotes from the judge's decision and says that it's published online, but I can't find it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/high-court-medical-practitioners-tribunal-service-justice-abergavenny-monmouthshire-b2311720.html

Especially as GenderGP don’t do any of the bone density monitoring stuff that GIDS insist on.

No need for caution when you are absolutely convinced that puberty blockers are 100 % safe and reversible eh? 😬

Not necessarily. Anywhere she works in England would need CQC registration. The CQC require all doctors to have an enhanced DBS, and she has a criminal conviction. Criminal offences don't absolutely exclude employment, but they will certainly flag up on a DBS and require any employer/umbrella organisation to account for a decision to engage the clinician.

I was rather assuming that she would be welcomed back with open arms to Gender GP. They've just taken on Susie Green haven't they? They are obviously in need of individuals who are prepared to practice(literally) experimental non-evidence based medicine on minors. And there seem to be an endless supply of hapless parents ready to feed their children into the gender machine.

Having said that presumably her indemnity premiums will be through the roof (if she can find anyone willing to insure her). As you say she has a criminal record AND she is practising in an extremely risky area of medicine and the indemnity companies must have clocked onto this by now. She must have cost her indemnity company a fortune!

Susie Green isn't a clinician though. If Gender GP want to provide actual healthcare (as opposed to Mermaids-style genderwoo signposting) in England, they need CQC registration, which includes being accountable for the suitability of any clinicians they use. Similar rules, though no CQC, in the devolved nations.

And, yes, indemnity or insurance will be difficult to obtain and the premiums would be likely to make any service non-viable.

Also, if HW wants to practise as a GP, she will need to be on one of the national performers' lists, which means she will be accountable to NHS England/Scotland etc for how she practises, via an annual appraisal. Appraisals are conducted by doctors, who should be capable of picking up any deviation from recognised practice. If she is not practising as a GP, she would need to work under the aegis of a specialist who would then be vicariously liable for what she did. Can't see that being very tempting for anyone.

I know Susie Green isn't a clinician but it give an idea of the type of person that business is prepared to hire. They are not worried about hiring individuals with a (bad) reputation.

Her conviction is from 2018 and that is related to setting up a clinic when not being registered. The MPTS committee could have decided that this affected her fitness to practice but they decided that it did not.

I wonder what powers the CQC would have to prevent somebody working clinically when that person does not have any current restrictions at all on their practice. There are now officially no clinical concerns at all. She has (incredibly) avoided even being reprimanded by the GMC for her conviction.

If she is considered fit to practice by her regulator I don't see that there is much that the CQC can do. If they refused to allow her to carry out her profession that would be like suspension through the back door.

Also if HW works privately she will not be accountable to the NHS will she?

To practise as a GP in the NHS, a doctor needs to be on a national performers' list register and to participate in appraisal. Strictly speaking, there is no such requirement for private GPs. In reality, though, someone who has just tangled with the GMC would risk further action if they could not show evidence of participating either in the NHS appraisal/CPD system or an equally robust one.

Any doctor who has got into legal and regulatory difficulties would need to show evidence of reflection and learning from what has happened (as with any adverse incident). I would suggest that boasting all over social media about being exonerated and showing no insight whatsoever is an unwise thing to do in that context [stand by for the deletion message for MNHQ, saying that the OP has 'privacy concerns'. Don't bother HW - we have the screenshots].

The CQC has no powers over individual clinicians, but it does have the power to make life very uncomfortable for any organisation that uses a clinician not considered appropriate for the role. Failing to participate in appraisal, and displaying lack of insight or circumspection would be evidence of this.

A further consideration is that, as PP said, most NHS GPs already have concerns about Gender GP, following MW's erasure from the GMC register. Most patients seen by Gender GP cannot afford to have private treatment indefinitely so Gender GP has relied on bullying NHS GPs into carrying on the prescriptions it has first issued. But NHS GPs have a responsibility for ensuring that any private providers on whose instructions they act are suitably qualified and following proper guidelines- the responsibility for a prescription lies with the GP who actually issues it, regardless of any specialist advice. No NHS GP in their right mind is going to issue a prescription on the advice of a doctor who is neither a specialist nor on a GP performers' list.