The regulator is claiming that exams can only contribute towards a CCT if the doctor is in an approved training post at the time he or she sits the exam. Exams taken at other times will only allow the trainee to get a CESR. This has been described as “counter-intuitive, illogical and inconsistent”, and many of the Colleges and Trainee organisations have expressed their opposition to this. For the ‘Lost Tribe’ of doctors this represents one more kick in the teeth. A CESR is significantly more expensive, and restricts the ability of doctors to work abroad.

The GMC have painted themselves as being the hapless victims of the law; forced into this position because of the wording of the statutes and unable to interpret it flexibly. But a closer inspection of the relevant legislation - Section 34H(4)(f) – at http://www.gmc-uk.org/about/legislation/medical_act.asp#34H - shows a very different picture.

The wording reads:-

The General Council shall…establish standards of, and requirements relating to, postgraduate medical education and training, including those necessary for the award of a CCT in general …The standards and requirements established …shall include… the examinations, assessments and other tests of competence to be completed, whether during or upon completion of a course of education and training …

It is quite plain to us from the wording used that Parliament permitted two routes to getting a CCT. Some doctors would pass their exams during their training programmes. Others would pass the exams at other times – earlier or later. All that mattered was that the exams and assessments were passed. Both routes were equally acceptable, and section 34H(4)(f) explicitly acknowledges this. If the legislators had not taken this view then doctors would not have been given the option of sitting exams ‘during’ or alternatively ‘upon completion’.

Our initial legal advice has been that the Act allows both alternatives, and we are left wondering why the GMC/PMETB have adopted their present position. We will be pursuing this over the next few weeks and will report our progress. And we encourage Deaneries, Colleges and other bodies to collaborate with us.

And meanwhile in Court ….

Our judicial review of the ‘Architects of MTAS’ was heard in court on May 11th, and we expect a judgement before the end of the month. Our barristers presented the case extremely well. Further details are here

We have been asked what will happen if the Architects resign or retire before the enquiry is complete. The current GMC modus operandi suggests that this won’t make any difference and they will relentlessly proceed.

This is clearly illustrated by the case of Howard Martin, who is reported in this week’s BMJ to be facing a fitness to practice committee. Dr Martin is 75 years old, and he is already suspended from the Medical Register and unable to practise as a doctor. He is unable to attend the hearing because he needs to look after his elderly wife in North Wales, who is unwell, and he has no intention of practicing medicine again.

Nonetheless, the hearing is expected to last until 18th June. We wonder whether this is a productive use of our hard-earned cash.