Threshold for investigation of doctor's deaths

Pieter made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

7,199,013 notifiable arrests by Police in the UK were made between 2004 – 2009, resulting in 128 deaths, giving an annual risk per arrested person of 0.0000035.

71,560 troops were deployed to Afghanistan between 2001 – 2014, resulting in 453 deaths, giving an annual risk of death per troop of 0.00048.

21,000 doctors were investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK between 2005 – 2013, resulting in 114 deaths, giving an annual risk of death per doctor of 0.00067. This is almost double that of troops in combat situations.

In 2008/9 the number of deaths per year and rate of deaths per 100,000 notifiable arrests by the Police in the UK was 1 (steadily declining from 2.7 in 2004/5).

Even if all registered doctors (approx 200,000) in 2008/9 were arrested by the Police and put in custody, there would only be 2 doctor deaths expected (1 per 100,000).

In 2003, according to the GMC's own statistics, 9 doctors died out of 212 investigated for health reasons (Up from 3 in 2002). This extrapolate to more than 4,000 per 100,000 doctors, to put the Police arrest figures into perspective.

In 2013 an estimated 12 doctors died and in 2014, an estimated 14 doctors died under investigation and subsequent procedures.

These statistics do not include the large number of doctors who died after and as a result of these GMC processes.

The Facts are:
The GMC is knowingly and deliberately causing the deaths of doctors.

The Law requires:
1) Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, section 1(1) An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised—(a)causes a person's death, and (b)amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.

2) Under Article 2 of the Convention: 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

3) Under Article 3 of the Convention: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

4) Under the Human Rights Act 1998, section 6(1) It is unlawful for a public authority [the Department of Justice] to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

How many doctors need to be killed per year before the DoJ will act and instruct the DPP to investigate and prosecute the CEO and President of the GMC?

Yours faithfully,

Dr Pieter Jooste

Dr David Waghorn left an annotation ()

The excess deaths incurred by the medical profession of the United Kingdom from the General Medical Council procedures are neither legitimate, proportionate, nor necessary for the protection of health of the public of this country.

No doctor, whatever his misdemeanor may be, deserves to perish in the process.

Quite frankly, the independent regulator's actions are indefensible.

Dear Ministry of Justice,

Due to the seriousness of this matter and additional evidence, I am obliged to insist on an immediate answer from the DoJ

The DPP has decided, in the matter of Tunbridge Wells Hospital to investigate and prosecute a Doctor and the CEO

The DPP has persistently refused to investigate and prosecute the President and CEO of the GMC despite the actions of the GMC being perpetrated wilfully and for financial gain.

It only needs cursory investigation to establish that the GMC has no function, does not protect the Public, defalcates public funds, and is an embarrassment to the Government of the UK and the Citizens.

The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) would be the appropriate body to regulate doctors in the UK.

Next year an estimated 15 doctors will be killed by the GMC.

If no actions are taken, the DoJ's omissions would indicate nepotism and bias, in excess of the tolerances of a democratic society.

As of today, this now places the DoJ in a position of Gross Negligence, and duty-bound under Statute and International Treaty to answer to the allegations of violations of
1) Right to Life (Article 2)
2) Discrimination (Article 14)
3) Right to a Fair Trail (Article 6)
4) Right to Respect for Private and Family Life (Article 8)
5) Freedom of Assembly and Dis-Association (Article 11)
6) Right to an Effective Remedy (Article 13)

The Complainants in this matter is not a single individual but the collective of more than 200, 000 doctors, forced to submit to the undemocratically imposed regulatory disciplinary procedures of the GMC, and at risk of being killed.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Pieter Jooste

Coroners, Ministry of Justice

Dear Dr Jooste
 
Thank you for your email about the number of doctors who die each year
while being investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC). I
understand that you believe that the GMC are knowingly causing the deaths
of these doctors. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding
to you.
 
Unfortunately, this is not something that the Ministry of Justice can
assist you with. I must clarify that the GMC is an independent
organisation which is neither regulated nor funded by the Ministry of
Justice. If you think a crime has been committed then I would suggest that
you contact your local police force who would be better placed to look
into your concerns.
 
Regards.
 
 
 
Sarla Parbat
 
Coroners, Burials, Cremation and Inquiries Policy Team, Access to Justice,
Justice Policy Group,
 
Ministry of Justice,
Post Point 3.37, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ
t: 0203 334 3131
e: [1][email address]
 
 
_____________________________________________
 

show quoted sections

Do Not Reply,

Our ref: DE-00001011864  

 

Dear Dr Jooste,
 
Thank you for your correspondence of 22 December to the Ministry of
Justice about the General Medical Council (GMC).  As your email relates to
healthcare, it has been passed to the Department of Health and I have been
asked to reply.  I apologise for the delay in doing so.

As you know, the GMC is an independent statutory body, directly
accountable to Parliament.  The Department cannot and should not become
involved in individual cases.  Complaints about the GMC and its processes
should be raised directly through the GMC’s complaints procedure.

 

If you have concerns about the conduct of the GMC and its processes, you
may wish to contact the Professional Standards Authority for Health and
Social Care (PSA).  The contact details are:

 

Professional Standards Authority

157-197 Buckingham Palace Road

London SW1W 9SP

 

Tel: 020 7389 8030

Email: [email address]

 

The PSA is responsible for overseeing the UK’s nine health and care
professional regulatory bodies. 

 

Although the PSA does not investigate specific complaints, one of its
functions is to carry out an annual performance review of the regulatory
bodies, which allows it to look into concerns that have been raised about
these bodies.  The PSA looks at evidence it has and assesses whether there
are any issues for a regulator to respond to as part of the performance
review process.  The PSA then analyses and, if necessary, challenges the
responses from the regulators.  If the PSA considers that an issue affects
the regulator’s performance, it will report this and any action the
regulator is taking or has taken in response to the concern, when it
publishes its performance review.

 

More generally, a Section 60 Order to amend the Medical Act 1983, to
establish the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in statute and other
reforms to the GMC fitness to practise procedures was submitted to Privy
Council.  Approval to the Order was given on 19 March 2015, and the Order
came into force on 31 December.  The GMC began implementation of the
changes to its adjudication procedures on 1 January.

 

The section 60 Order will modernise the GMC’s adjudication procedures,
improve the timeliness and effectiveness of its processes, and ensure that
appointments, investigations and public protection functions are fair to
practitioners and enhance public confidence in the medical profession.

 

I hope this reply is helpful.

Yours sincerely,
 
Caroline Soury
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not reply to this email. To contact the Department of Health,
please visit the [1]'Contact DH' section on the GOV.UK website.

 

show quoted sections

Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for
compliance with the Department of Health's policy on the use of electronic
communications. For more information on the Department of Health's e-mail
policy click here http://www.dh.gov.uk/terms

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email was scanned by the Symantec virus scanning service and was
certified virus free.
Communications may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati...