It has been alleged that he pushed his own religion on patient and claimed his religion was better than his patient's (and I presume Dr Scott would give the context to that claim with no difficulty whatsoever). Now GMC investigation Committee had to adjourn because witness (patient) did not appear.
Doctors4Justice has received a complaint from a person who claims to be frightened to give evidence to GMC in case other doctors take it out on her. However, GMC witnesses can give evidence in private and without their name's being known to the public.
GMC Investigation Committee does not appear enthusiastic to see Dr Scott or anyone on this subject ever again in our view judging by their determination in the case. This is in sharp contrast to GMC's position in High Court, on appeals of GMC Fitness to Practice Decisions where GMC tell judge that there could be no reliance placed on GMC's transcripts of hearings because the judge hearing the appeal would miss on facial expressions, tone of voices etc not recorded in transcripts. At the same time GMC prohibits video recording of the hearing and so does the High Court. Now GMC say the same committee people do not have to hear the witnesses, but two days of hearings had already been done. New Investigation Committee would have to rely on transcripts of which there are none at present (GMC Media Office would not give any now, although transcripts can be done the same day, the hearing has attracted the attention of media and is in public interest, and was public hearing). Here is GMC's decision:
Investigation Committee (Oral hearing)
Dr Richard Alexander Scott (2890748)
23 September 2011
St James’s Building, 79 Oxford Road, Manchester M1 6FQ
Dr Scott: In accordance with Rule 29(2) of the General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules 2004 the Committee have determined to adjourn these proceedings to enable the GMC to make a further attempt to secure the attendance of Patient A.
The Committee would invite parties to agree future listing arrangements and recommend that this case should be brought forward within a reasonable timeframe.
In the interests of clarity there is no requirement for this case to be heard by the same members of this Committee.
Photo: BBC, Click on the photo of Dr Richard Alexander Scott to read BBC's article.