The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has criticised the GMC’s approach to cases involving paediatricians and child protection work.
It follows paediatrician Dr David Southall’s successful appeal in a long-running dispute with the GMC. He was struck off in 2007 for accusing a mother - Mrs M - of drugging and murdering her 10-year-old son.
While the Appeal Court ruled that the GMC fitness to practise panel should provide more detailed reasons for its findings, Southall remains struck off the register.
A spokesperson for the RCPCH said: “There is a genuine and widespread sense of puzzlement by paediatricians regarding the fact that the GMC would prefer a parent’s evidence, even when the paediatrician’s account was corroborated by a second professional who was also present.
Southall was instructed as an expert witness in care proceedings involving Mrs M’s younger, surviving son. He was accused of expressing concerns about the son’s safety in an interview with her. Southall said he outlined three possible scenarios but did not accuse her of murder. He argued that if she felt accused that was a misconception.
A senior social worker was also present during the interview, and took notes, and also denied that an accusation of murder had taken place.
The GMC, however, found that his actions added to her distress following the death of her other son, who hanged himself in 1996.
“As a result, all paediatricians remain concerned and worried about their own clinical practice.”
Following the Appeal Court judges’ findings that the GMC had failed to give adequate reasons for saying Southall had made unjustified allegations about Mandy Morris, a further hearing will be held to decide on the charges.
The RCPCH said it did not comment on individual cases but felt there was an important principle to note. It pointed to an acknowledgement by Lord Justice Leveson, one of the judges involved, that in raising child protection concerns a paediatrician will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
The GMC panel said Southall had a “deep-seated attitudinal problem”.
Southall argued that the GMC had failed to give “any or adequate weight” to inconsistencies in Mrs M’s evidence and that it didn’t understand what child protection work involved.
In giving his ruling, Lord Justice Leveson said: “I would allow this appeal although I must make it clear that this conclusion is not a condemnation of Mrs M or a vindication for Dr Southall and should not be seen as either.”
A GMC spokesperson said: “At this stage we believe that the best way to proceed would be for the original panel to reconvene and provide further reasoning on its decision so that this case can be resolved.”
Tags: Child protection, GMC
