The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7426 p564
11 November 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

GMC and BMA respond to Donaldson review

The opinions of the medical profession's regulator and its professional association are at odds over several proposals outlined in chief medical officer Liam Donaldson's review of the regulation of doctors.

In their responses, the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association have differing views over Sir Liam’s recommendation that the composition of the GMC should be changed to reflect its new responsibilities and that members should be independently appointed by the Public Appointments Commission. The GMC advocates a move away from professionally led regulation (PJ, 30 September, p382) to a balance that reflects those who provide and receive health care across the UK. It believes that there should be an equal proportion of lay and medical members and appointment processes must be independent, fair, transparent and free from Government influence. “Further work and public debate is needed to translate the principles into practice. This includes how best to achieve the mix of skills and diversity required,” it says.

However, the BMA firmly believes that doctors should continue to elect the GMC’s medical members. “Election is part of the means of ensuring the credibility of the regulator with the profession that it regulates. Replacement of professionally led regulation with the proposed model of all appointed members will set back the progress achieved.”

The BMA concedes that the PAC could approve a list of candidates from which members could then be elected.

The BMA also opposes Sir Liam’s suggestion that the standard of proof required to strike a doctor off should be lowered from the criminal to the civil level. In contrast, the GMC supports the introduction of the civil standard of proof provided it is flexibly applied and hence enables proper account to be taken of the seriousness of the allegation and of the consequences.

Both organisations support revalidation but disagree with Sir Liam that responsibility for undergraduate education should be moved from the GMC to the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is expected to publish its response to the Foster review of non-medical regulators next week. Several of Sir Liam’s proposals are also common to the parallel review of non-medical regulators (PJ, 22 July, p91). Consultation on proposals contained in both reviews closes on 10 November.