http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suspended-paediatrician-southall-wins-appeal-against-gmc-1949610.html
From: DARETOCARE1@aol.com
To Jeremy.Laurance@independent.co.uk
CC: len.tyler@rcpch.ac.uk, pressoffice@gmc-uk.org
Sent: 23/04/2010 16:31:53 GMT Day light TimeSubj:
Your article regarding Dr Southall's appeal
Dear Mr Laurance
In your article you quote the RCPCH
"The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health said the case raised an important principle: that a paediatrician voicing child protection concerns would, as Lord Justice Leveson had put it, be "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't", and that argument was "supported by statements from prominent paediatricians". The college said there was "a genuine and widespread sense of puzzlement" among members that the GMC preferred a parent's evidence even when a paediatrician's account was corroborated by a second professional."
"3. Ms Mary O’Rourke QC for Dr Southall argued that lying beneath the surface of these issues is a far more serious question which touches upon the approach which paediatricians and other professionals are required to or should adopt in relation to investigating whether children with whom they are concerned are being or have been abused. On the one hand, in this case, what was found to be inappropriate, accusatorial, intimidating questions which the panel concluded abused the doctor’s professional position and added to the distress of a bereaved person (to summarise the other charges which were found proved) led to the erasure of the doctor. On the other, public criticism of the failure of professionals to identify abusive relationships and then take appropriate steps to protect children (evidenced contemporaneously in relation to a child known as Baby P whose parent was convicted of permitting the harm and death of her child) has led to the concern that, in connection with child protection issues, a paediatrician will be “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”; that argument is supported by statements from prominent paediatricians. Ms Monica Carss-Frisk QC for the General Medical Council (“GMC”), responding to this appeal, challenged that view. She submitted that this issue did not arise; the case turned upon a straightforward issue of fact i.e. whether Dr Southall had expressly accused Mrs M of drugging and then murdering M1 by hanging him, it not being suggested that if Dr Southall had done so, he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct. It was not suggested that the other charge in connection with Mrs M reflected different issues.
The RCPCH have misinterpreted the context of the judgment, Lord Leveson is quoting Mary O'Rourke, (which is why the statement is in quotes!) when he says "damned if they do damned if they don't", he is not agreeing with the RCPCH at all, in fact, had somebody bothered to read the judgment in its entirety, they would have noticed that rather than support the RCPCH's submissions the Judges throw them out in their entirety, whilst making the point that the other charges needed to be further explained.
69. It is no part of our task to enter into issues of professional practiceor the need for guidance and, for my part, I would not do so. Child protection issues and the way in which such matters are handled remain a matter of enormous public concern and I have no doubt that paediatricians will recognise the vital importance to be attached to an approach that is focussed but sensitive. In that regard, it is clear that considerable thought has been given to the appropriate guidance which I hope will go a considerable distance to assuage remaining concern. If any remains, it requires to be addressed by the relevant bodies and not, in the first instance, by this court.
70. In relation to interviews, however, I add this. The days when a police officer corroborated by one or more other police officers was inevitably believed in relation to interviews (recorded in the officer’s notebook after the event) have long since passed. Prior to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, concern was expressed about the adverse impact of tape recording police interviews. In fact, taped interviews have removed all challenge and have assisted the administration of justice enormously. When asked why such steps were not taken in relation to those interviews in this field which are the most sensitive (in which category, the interview of Mrs M would most certainly qualify), the court was told that it was a matter of expense. Small digital tape recorders are not expensive and interviews can be stored electronically and transcribed only if some issue later arises: such a step would provide protection for the paediatrician and any other professional involved and also protection for the person being interviewed. Although it is not a matter for me, as with taped police interviews, I perceive only advantage to all and no disadvantage to anyone.
Conclusion
71. For want of adequate reasons, I would allow this appeal although I must make it clear that this conclusion is not a condemnation of Mrs M or a vindication for Dr Southall and should not be seen as either.
On any showing, the panel will have to consider what penalties should be imposed in relation to the other proved charges;as for the charges relating to Mrs M, I would invite the parties to make submissions as to the appropriate order. Lord Justice Dyson
I would appreciate it if you and the RCPCH would correct the article/press statement accordingly.
Thank you
Penny Mellor
.
