11th September 2024
Following the publication of the GMC guidance for doctors taking part in protests or other types of activism, Chair of UKHACC Richard Smith wrote to the Chair of GMC, with some observations and questions (noted below).
We were grateful to receive a response which clarifies the GMC’s position.
1. The case studies make clear that it is possible for a doctor to be convicted of a criminal offence and yet not be referred to the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
2. The GMC is rightly concerned with keeping the public’s confidence in the profession, but how does it measure the public’s confidence? We know that the majority of the British population is concerned about the climate and ecological crisis and is worried that the government’s response is inadequate. In these circumstances, might it not be that doctors convicted of actions on the climate and ecological crisis may increase rather than reduce the public’s confidence in the profession?
3. The GMC says that it “can’t take a view on the merits of specific causes.” Is this a legal restriction? Is it impossible for the GMC to recognise, as does the United Nations, the WHO, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that the climate and ecological crisis is the major threat to global health and an existential threat to human survival? It seems absurd that it can’t.
4. The guidance doesn’t seem to recognise the inevitable conflicts that arise in the duties of a doctor. Doctors should be protecting the health of the public, which activists see as justification for taking actions that lead to a criminal conviction. Can and does the GMC take these conflicts into account when deciding what action to take on convicted doctors?