1. I work for Doctors4Justice, a pressure group with the aims as set above.
2. The case of Dr Jane Barton has exposed the weakness of the General Medical Council once again. I have read your press statement that you plan to read the transcript of her case and consider referral to the High Court.
3. There are many cases of doctors who have done no harm to their patients but have been struck off medical register. Your organization has remained silent in all of those cases. Why?
4. There are doctors who are harassed for many years by the General Medical Council through the process of sham peer reviews, and who are ordered to undergo physical and psychiatric examinations for which there are no indications. I can provide a lot of evidence for that and you know about it too. Why you have done nothing about it?
5. Sanctions not indicated or workable are imposed by the GMC especially on Foreign doctors as a revenge for raising the issues in the interest of their patients and public. As a whistleblower I know all about it. Will you continue to avoid this issue?
6. I won many prizes at school and outside. I worked hard and conscientiously but 15 conditions were imposed by the GMC on my practice making it impossible to find a job only because GMC machine belongs to some doctors and not to others. Do you agree with this statement? Are you aware that there is such a thing as racism, sexism and ageism in NHS? Are you aware that as the result of these prejudices referrals are made to the GMC by the prejudiced doctors, for example? Are you aware that the GMC does not respond for years when requests are made for disclosure of information eg referrals of female doctors for psychiatric examinations?
7. GMC conducts sham peer reviews at the request of NHS medical directors who are racist but GMC fails to deal with doctors whose care of the patients is severely compromised. Dr Jane Barton is just one example of those doctors who seriously fail their patients.
8. Am I correct in saying that government is actually complicit in the elimination of the elderly and mentally ill people by doctors through their acts of commission and omission? These most vulnerable people who no longer pay taxes could be seen as a burden to the society. Do you condone such practices?
9. Similarly, do you approve of the elimination of foreign doctors in order to please local "gangs" ie professionals who are bullies and abuse the legal process by making false allegations to the GMC? Have you ever wondered why nobody is ever punished. What are your policies to deal with mobbing? Do you know what it means?
10. Do you agree with the GMC that their Expert Witnesses who give false evidence and know it should go unpunished contrary to the law and GMC's own Code of Medical Practice?
11. On your website CHRE I found this statement:
The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence promotes the health and well-being of patients and the public in the regulation of health professionals. We scrutinize and oversee the work of the nine regulatory bodies that set standards for training and conduct of health professionals.
We share good practice and knowledge with the regulatory bodies, conduct research, and introduce new ideas about regulation to the sector. We monitor policy in the UK and Europe and advise the four UK government health departments on issues relating to the regulation of health professionals. We are an independent body accountable to the UK Parliament.
12. I also found this statement on CHRE website:
We protect the public by:
helping the regulatory bodies to improve their performance
setting and driving up standards for health professions regulation
encouraging greater consistency of regulatory practice and outcomes
shaping future developments in the regulation of health professions.
13. How do you manage to achieve your objectives if, in fact, you never examine consistency of regulatory practice in cases of disadvantaged doctors who are dealt with in a draconian fashion. As far as I know CHRE always refuses to look at the cases of excellent doctors who are treated badly by the GMC and CHRE is only interested if punishment is not severe enough. If the sanctions are imposed on a doctor who subsequently cannot work and patients die because of the lack of medical care CHRE does absolutely nothing.
As CHRE does nothing to protect excellent doctors would it be fair to say it is merely an extension of the government keen to deal with what is considered dangerous decision by GMC in one case but not in the other and contrary to your objective to have the consistency in the regulatory body decision making? How can you decide what is consistent and what is not if you do not examine it?
14. This email has been copied to the Human Rights Advisory Committee at United Nations because of the violations of the Human Rights both by the GMC and your organization.
Dr Helen Bright