The appellant consultant anaesthetist appealed against the decision of the respondent’s Fitness to Practice Panel to impose conditions on his registration.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘Any approach to the issue of whether a doctor’s fitness to practice should be regarded as ‘impaired’ must take account of ‘the need to protect the individual patient, and the collective need to maintain confidence profession as well as declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and behaviour of the public in their doctors and that public interest includes amongst other things the protection of patients, maintenance of public confidence in the’. In my view, at stage 2 when fitness to practice is being considered, the task of the Panel is to take account of the misconduct of the practitioner and then to consider it in the light of all the other relevant factors known to them in answering whether by reason of the doctor’s misconduct, his or her fitness to practice has been impaired. It must not be forgotten that a finding in respect of fitness to practice determines whether sanctions can be imposed: section 35D of the Act. ‘ In this case the panel had not properly considered wheher the fault found was easily remediable.
Judges:
Silber J
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 581 (Admin), [2008] LS Law Medical 246
Links:
Statutes:
Medical Act 1983 35D(2), The General Medical Council (Fitness to Practice) Rules Order of Council 2004 17
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Harford v The Nursing and Midwifery Council Admn 10-Apr-2013
The appellant challenged a finding that her fitness to practice had been impaired by misconduct and the attachment of a conditions of practice order effective for six months.
Held: The Panel had applied the correct test. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health Professions
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.266232