Britain's most controversial expert in child protection will this week face a disciplinary hearing before the General Medical Council that could see him struck off for a second time.
Yes, it's
Professor David Southall again.
There are few crimes to equal abusing a child, but one is falsely to accuse a parent of committing such a crime. The dilemma faced by paediatricians working in child protection is how to steer a course between wrongly diagnosing abuse while avoiding missing it altogether. Dr Southall, formerly a consultant paediatrician at the North Staffordshire hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, was struck off the medical register in 2007 after being found guilty of serious misconduct for allegedly accusing a mother of drugging and murdering her 10-year-old son, who died in 1996.
And for this, he was struck off. But not for long...
His account was backed up by a social worker who had been present during the interview, but the GMC panel chose to believe the evidence of the mother. It concluded Dr Southall had an "attitudinal problem" and that this, combined with his "lack of insight into the multiplicity" of his failings, made erasure from the medical register necessary. But, in May last year, the High Court overturned the GMC's decision, arguing it was based on "flawed" reasoning, and Dr Southall was restored to the register.
And in a move that will no doubt have his supporters screaming that the establishment is 'out to get him', he's back up before them on other matters:
However, the GMC had also found that Dr Southall had breached patient confidentiality and kept special case files separate from the main hospital records. The High Court instructed the GMC to resolve these issues, and the hearing, which could lead to Dr Southall being struck off again, has been adjourned three times owing to the illness of a panel member and is now due to resume on Wednesday.
If he's struck off again, will there be
another outcry from his chums?
The GMC's original decision to strike Dr Southall off the register alarmed the paediatric community because it appeared to demolish a key part of their defence against false accusations – the presence of an independent professional witness.
The idea that a social worker could be 'independent' would be laughable, were the potential consequences not so serious...
3 comments:
"The idea that a social worker could be 'independent' would be laughable .."
Not half as laughable as the notion that they might be professional or even competent ..
Complete waste of space & rations, the lot of 'em ..
What is the point of having a register if you allow tossers who make outrageous, life-wrecking and totally unsubstantiated judgements to appeal when they are justly erased from said register?
Agreed!
Post a Comment