The Curious Case of the Missing FTP Hearings
- Details
- Published: Wednesday, 19 July 2023 09:43
- Written by Peter Ingle
- Hits: 1576
The GDC appears to be increasingly selective in it’s publication of Fitness to Practice (FTP) proceedings. The pattern appears to be that if a decision is overturned or the charges fail to be proved then details are removed or edited.
This includes details of the actual charges and the hearing, including the evidence provided, expert witness contributions, and the panel’s deliberations, all of which are usually published.
One example is the Williams “top up” case which the GDC has removed from its hearings website. This of course makes it harder to see what arguments the GDC used in their now overturned decision, how they conducted the case, or who the expert witnesses were. While a particular expert witness who has been involved in at least one other contentious case, and has a very high profile, is no doubt grateful for this, it may hinder the subjects of future FTP cases in their defence.
And now the latest example of the GDC’s selective approach to engagement, education and transparency.
The following is taken from a recent charge sheet:
Those are the charges in their entirety, GDPUK has merely removed the dentist’s details and the date the alleged conversation occurred.
Note that a finding of ‘Dishonesty’ was sought, and when proven at FTP this is considered to make a stronger case for erasure.
After a likely 3 year journey through the FTP process culminating in a 3 day hearing, and pause of a week awaiting “confirmation,” the outcome has now been published.
It is shown as “facts not proved, case concluded”
The charge sheet has been removed from the website.
Readers may well wonder just what is going on with charges of this nature going to FTP. The GDC refuse to talk to GDPUK, so if you are wondering how this got so far, you will need to ask them yourself.
There are a variety of ways to contact the GDC, including Send Enquiry (gdc-uk.org)
If you do contact the GDC, please let forum readers know what response you get.
The Curious Case of Missing FtP Hearings
A charge of 'dishonesty' is inappropriate. You can only judge someone is not honest if they say something that is a lie or does not tell the truth relating to an action.I asking someone not to include photos is not dishonest. It's inappropriate, lacks integrity, unprofessional, gives rise to incomplete clinical notes … yes. Dishonest if he said he never asked someone to do that.
So it seems the GDC throws that term in and uses it to have a meaning which is unconventional and so hope to secure erasure. This is not only unethical, but should not be legal as you cannot just change the meaning of words when you want so you can do what you want.
Missing FTP decisions
The decision isn’t missing. It’s on page 2 but it will be removed within a couple of weeks because the GDC removes a decision when the registrant is not impaired.Missing FTP charges
The decision was still up. The article seems to confirm that, but focuses on the removal of the charge sheet. Seeing someones name there as having been through the full FTP process might make readers think that there were serious allegations against the (still named) registrant. The removal of this particular charge sheet does more to conceal the increasingly megalomaniacal behaviour of the GDC, than protect the registrant.You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report