The GMC has refused the request of 1600 doctors for an enquiry into the fitness to practice of the architects of MTAS.   Do the concepts of accountability and revalidation apply to some but not to others? Is the GMC applying double standards?   Remedy is launching a legal challenge to find out. But we cannot do it without your help. We need to raise a minimum of £20,000. To find out more, read on.   To make a donation right now, click here

The story so far

In December we heard that the GMC had refused to submit the case to a lay or medical examiner. This has meant that those responsible for the 'biggest disaster in a generation' have not been subjected to independent professional scrutiny for their actions. We believe this constitutes a reflex rejection of the most widely supported GMC referral in the history of the medical profession.

There is a wider point of principle here - one which affects all doctors. Should those entrusted with the highest responsibilities in medicine be above the law? Or are they as accountable as the rest of us for their actions in their own individual fields of practice? These questions rise above the events of 2007.

Remedy believes that this GMC decision should be challenged as a benchmark for future practice and conduct, and we are prepared take legal action to try to have it reversed. We have strong legal arguments in our favour, a first class legal team and the courage of our convictions. It will be a test case for impunity in the medical profession.

We now need to raise the money to pay for a day in court. You can make a donation and play your part in securing one rule for all.

Why Remedy referred the case to the GMC

Our specific complaints related to:-

• The unfitness for purpose of the computer system, the shortlisting and interviewing system,
• The lack of piloting and the decision to proceed before it had been shown to be fit for purpose, and
• The failure to adequately heed or address the risks that were identified in advance.

The impact on individual doctors, their patients and the medical community were well documented. Many different people were responsible, some of whom were doctors. None of those that we identified have seen fit to resign their posts, nor have their employers seen fit to sack them.

We consider this action an essential step:

• to maintain the good reputation of the profession in the eyes of other doctors and the general public
• to protect the public and the public purse against future equivalent mismanagement
• to rebuild trust. Acting with impunity will harm the profession, patients and taxpayers.

The GMC decision to reject the case was made on two grounds.

1. the alleged misconduct is not relevant to the fitness to practice of these doctors, and
2. allegations of deficient performance must be concerned with poor performance in a clinical setting.

We refute these arguments, and have written a detailed summary of the legal arguments and case law.

What we plan to do

If the GMC maintains its position will seek a judicial review of their decision. Judicial review is a legal process whereby a public body is challenged in court for acting illegally or irrationally, or for making a decision improperly. If we succeed, the GMC can be ordered to reconsider its decision by the courts. Judicial review in the High Court is the legal technique that Remedy used in 2007 to challenge the Secretary of State for Health.

Our lawyers are sending a 'letter before action', and are asking for a review of the specified decision. We have also sent a Freedom of Information request to determine how the decision was reached and whether or not there were any improper procedures or inappropriate influence.

We want to establish whether or not the GMC has jurisdiction in cases like this. If not then have the ‘great and the good’ become unimpeachable?

Now it is up to you

If you do not support this action, it cannot go ahead - Remedy does not have the cash reserves to fund it. We believe the whole medical profession will benefit from the case going forward – not just those affected by the 2007 reforms but all doctors with a legitimate interest in issues of accountability and impunity.

We need to raise a minimum of £20,000 by March 2009.

What you can do

This is a landmark case which could change GMC case law to the benefit of every doctor now and in the future.

We are asking for donations from individual doctors of between £10 and £50. You can donate by credit card, direct debit, bank transfer or Paypal. All donations will be anonymous.

We are also happy to accept donations from corporate sponsors.

If every signatory to our Unfinished Business petition gave just £20, we will reach our target. To make your donation, click here.
 
Thank you.