The GMC has clarified that doctors have the ‘right to campaign’ but ‘must follow the law’ in a new document on protests and political activism.
Following the controversy surrounding GP Dr Sarah Benn, who was suspended for breaching a court order after attending a climate change protest, the regulator has set out how it deals with concerns about doctors taking part in protests.
According to the document, the GMC has a ‘legal duty’ to consider any concern that is raised about a doctors’ actions, and that if a doctor has been convicted in a criminal matter and given a custodial sentence, this must be referred to tribunal.
In other cases, for example if a doctor receives a custodial sentence following civil proceedings, the regulator will consider it on the ‘individual circumstances’.
The GMC emphasised that these ‘circumstances’ never include the ‘nature of the protest’ the doctor took part in.
‘Doctors may take part in a protest for a range of causes and we can’t take a view on the merits of specific causes or sanction illegal conduct in that context,’ the GMC stated.
Dr Benn’s referral to the MPTS and suspension was widely criticised, with the BMA expressing ‘serious concerns’ and demanding a review.
In response, the GMC stressed that Dr Benn was referred for multiple breaches of a court order rather than for protesting about climate change.
In an example provided to show how their thresholds ‘may apply’, the GMC suggested it would close a case with ‘no action’ if a doctor was convicted and pled guilty to criminal damage for spray painting a bank’s head office.
But a case example involving a doctor who attended a climate change protest and verbally abused a police officer would be referred to the MPTS, since the doctor received a custodial sentence after being convicted of criminal damage, public order offences and resisting arrest.
When deciding whether the doctor’s actions were a ‘serious breach of professional standards, the GMC said it considers whether the conduct:
- risks harm to others or damage to property;
- is abusive, for example racial abuse or hate speech;
- involves undermining the rule of law;
- involves the doctor resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer or fleeing the scene;
- involves persistent or repeated breaches of the law (civil or criminal) including relevant court orders;
- results in a custodial or high sentence (which reflects the court’s assessment of the seriousness);
- includes a failure to report in line with Reporting criminal and regulatory proceedings;
- attempts to mislead the police, courts, an employer or the GMC in relation the event.
The document, which brings together existing guidance to set out the regulator’s position, reminds doctors that they must ensure their conduct ‘justifies patients’ trusts in them and the public’s trust in the profession’.
‘Doctors must therefore consider how their conduct might be perceived by members of the public and how this could impact confidence in the wider profession – even where the conduct takes place outside of their professional practice and they consider it to be principled action.’
The GMC also sought to reassure doctors who ‘may feel worried’ about fitness to practise referrals being ‘used inappropriately to discourage comment of unfairly target individuals’.
According to the document, this is ‘absolutely unacceptable’, and the regulator highlighted that there are ‘safeguards’ to make sure concerns are ‘appropriate and fair’.
Case examples
Example 1 – doctor takes part in a protest
A doctor was one of 20 individuals who formed a human blockade at the entrance to an oil refinery preventing access to vehicles. The blockade caused some disruption to operations at the refinery, but no property was damaged and nobody was injured.
The doctor was removed and arrested, but subsequently released without charge. They have no previous convictions.
The doctor informed us of their arrest. We decided that that it did not meet our threshold for investigation.
Example 2 – doctor convicted of criminal damage
A doctor attended a public protest at a bank’s head office. They, along with several others, sprayed paint across the entrance to the building.
The doctor was arrested. They were subsequently convicted after pleading guilty at the Magistrates’ Court to criminal damage. The doctor had no previous convictions. They were conditionally discharged and ordered to pay costs.
We decided to close the case with no action.
Source: GMC
Following Dr Benn’s case, Pulse revealed that several GPs were concerned about a conflict of interest for the deputy chair of the BMA’s GP Committee England as he was a medical member on the panel that made the decision.
Deputy chair Dr Julius Parker then said he will ‘pause’ his involvement in MPTS tribunals following the criticism.
Pulse Writing Competition 2024
Fancy yourself as the next Pulse blogger? Enter our writing competition now!
Clear as mud! Example 3. Dr Crispin likes walking on cracks in the pavement examining and photographing lichen formations in front of the local supermarket. The wealthy owner got a court injunction to stop him. Nevertheless he carried on walking on the cracks repeatedly. The police were called repeatedly and he was up in court repeatedly who robustly interpreting the law decided on a custodial sentence to “teach him a lesson”. According to its clarification, would the GMC punish Dr Crispin further?
Weasel clarification of its code of conduct by GMC after-the-event to post-hoc cover its poor treatment of Dr Benn and ilk, imo…
“ is abusive, for example racial abuse or hate speech.”. Bad language is striking and tends to get noticed. What if you have an important point and want to widen your audience? Get noticed? What if your target thoroughly deserves it? What if they destroy the profession you love, spent your working life promoting and educating new professionals? What if your target puts patients lives at risk on a daily basis and is deaf to all complaint? Abuse has its place as does all protest. Who decides?