Dear Editor
GMC has multiple biases including racial bias. As the GMC’s chief executive, Charlie Massey, said “The GMC is a collection of humans, each with their own biases. The challenge for us is to continue to seek out potential bias and address it head on.” (1).
It is naive to assume that more Political oversight via parliament will decrease bias. Enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of regulatory function brings the risk of GMC being significantly influenced by the political leanings of Party in power.
What is needed is curtailment of GMC powers, so that matters not directly related to patient care, like the Laptop issue in Manjula Aurora’s case, are removed from the scope of GMC regulatory over reach. (2). If there is no direct patient harm, contractual disputes and personal failings should be outside the scope of GMC review. (3).
An independent council of elected Medical professionals ( e.g Academy of medical royal colleges and BMA) should be able to annually scrutinise GMC work and comment whether there is a overall pattern of bias. This body, in CQC style, can provide feedback on overall work of GMC without out directly scrutinising every individual case. (4).
References
1. Mahase E. Manjula Arora: GMC was wrong to pursue GP over “promised” laptop, finds review BMJ 2022; 379 :o2619 doi:10.1136/bmj.o2619
2. McKee M, Greer S L. Doctors are accountable to the GMC, but who is the GMC accountable to? BMJ 2022; 379 :o2676 doi:10.1136/bmj.o2676
3. Sokol D. A cautionary tale for potentially dishonest doctors BMJ 2022; 377 :o1298 doi:10.1136/bmj.o1298
4. Care Quality Commission. https://www.cqc.org.uk/
GMC: curtailment of powers rather than more political oversight is needed