Doctors working as government or senior medical managers cannot be held to account by GMC for their actions, the High Court has ruled.
The judgement was made in a judicial review of a decision by the GMC not to investigate the professional and managerial decisions of two senior Department of Health managers in introducing the disastrous MTAS junior doctor recruitment scheme.
The campaign group Remedy UK brought the case, because it said the MTAS “architects” - former CMO professor Sir Liam Donaldson and Professor Sarah Thomas, who chaired the MTAS recruitment and selection steering group - should be investigated by the GMC’s fitness to practise procedures.
They had been responsible for introducing the scheme in 2007 that damaged doctors, patients and the standing of the profession, argued Remedy.
The GMC had rejected a request by Remedy that Donaldson and Thomas should be subjected to its disciplinary processes.
Remedy argued that the professional and managerial actions and conduct of Donaldson and Thomas in relation to MTAS fell seriously below the high standards that are expected by the profession, as laid out in GMC guidance.
But judges Lord Justice Elias and Justice Keith threw the case out because they said although Donaldson and Thomas used their medical skills and experience in their work for the Department of Health, their role in implementing government health policy was not a “medical function”. The functions they were exercising were too remote from the profession of medicine to bring them within the scope of the legislation governing the conduct of doctors.
The judges said that there was no allegation that the doctors had acted in bad faith and their conduct could not in any sense be deemed to be disreputable. “Bad judgment does not justify moral censure particularly where it is the decision of a committee of which the alleged wrongdoer is only one participant,” they ruled.
Matt Jameson Evans, Remedy co-chairman, said: “This is the worst possible outcome for ordinary doctors. We had always suspected that there was one rule for ‘them’ and one rule for ‘us’. Now we have it confirmed.”
Richard Marks, Remedy head of policy, said: “Lawyers across the country will be rubbing their hands in glee at the loopholes that this ruling will have created. The ramifications are that future CMOs and other senior management figures will be unaccountable to the GMC for deficient professional performance.”
He said their lawyers thought they had good grounds to appeal but at the moment Remedy could not afford the estimated costs of £20-40,000. Remedy is expecting it will have to pay £22,500 of the GMC’s total costs of over £45,000.
A GMC spokesperson said: ”We welcome the decision from Lord Justice Elias which confirms we were correct not to investigate complaints made by Remedy UK.”
Read the full judgement.
Interesting decision, and I agree that it appears to be one rule for us and one for them.
Some years ago, one of my colleagues was dragged before the GMC, not because of clinical failures, but because a patient died, and the death was deemed to be due to managerial failure - he was our clinical director at the time!