Press Release
Friday 4th July 2008
Following the Determination by the GMC Fitness to Practise Panel in the cases of Dr Spencer, Dr Southall and Dr Samuels that there is No Case to Answer
This decision must put to an end the longstanding allegationsi that have been repeatedly quoted in the press regarding the CNEP trial (ii). This whole process has led to cruel and unnecessary anxiety for those families who may have thought that their children had been given harmful treatment.
After hearing detailed evidence from the complainants, from 22 GMC witnesses and from three experts, the GMC panel concluded that there was no case to answer and abandoned its case. No evidence was presented to the Panel to show that any baby had been damaged by CNEP or by poor quality care. One independent GMC expert described the conduct of the CNEP trial as outstanding and another expressed regret that the longstanding media campaign has deprived children of a very promising treatment.
PACA considers that this case is a disturbing demonstration of how the GMC ignores the findings of previous investigations. The issues in this case had already been investigated by the doctors’ employing Trustiii, the NHS Regional Office and Staffordshire Police. Professor Rod Griffiths concluded in 2006 that “CNEP did no more damage than any other treatment that might have been used to try and help these [sick, preterm] infants.(iv) Others had previously stated that “the conduct of the CNEP trial was exemplary”(v). Yet this is the third time the GMC have considered this complaint over 11 years and in doing so the GMC Panel acknowledged that delays in the GMC process had breached the human rights of the doctors under investigation as set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
PACA is concerned that GMC reform has led to the pendulum swinging so far in the direction of protecting patients that the doctors’ rights are being abused and that this may deter those doctors who must act on behalf of the vulnerable child. The RCPCH passed a motion at its AGM in March 2008 expressing “grave concerns over current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection”. Whilst this Hearing was about a research study in newborn infants and not ostensibly about child protection, it is part of a pattern targeting doctors who have been involved in child protection. Two of these doctors had pioneered the use of covert surveillance to detect life-threatening child abuse. One of these, David Southall, is currently appealing his erasure from the medical register arising out of his child protection work. The GMC does not recognise vexatious complaints. These complainants are putting vulnerable children at risk by trying to discredit certain types of child abuse, particularly FII, and by recruiting the GMC to discredit those who make that diagnosis.
The GMC must reform its procedures to ensure justice for both patients and doctors and, in particular, to support those doctors whose duty is to protect vulnerable children.
i Allegations of forgery, fraud and killing babies have been repeatedly made against medical staff over the last 11 years, led by the complainants in the Fitness to Practise Hearing concluded today.
ii The CNEP trial was a research study undertaken to examine whether the use of Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) could help reduce the incidence of chronic lung disease of prematurity. It was carried out in two newborn intensive care units at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, London and the North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent between 1989 and 1993.
iii The North Staffordshire Hospital suspended two out of the three doctors from 1999 to 2001 for 20 and 27 months, whilst undertaking inquiries into their work in research and child protection.
iv Quote from Griffiths R. CNEP and research governance. Lancet 2006;367:1037-38.
v Quote from Hey E, Chalmers I. Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process. BMJ 2000:321:1-8
Friday 4th July 2008
Following the Determination by the GMC Fitness to Practise Panel in the cases of Dr Spencer, Dr Southall and Dr Samuels that there is No Case to Answer
This decision must put to an end the longstanding allegationsi that have been repeatedly quoted in the press regarding the CNEP trial (ii). This whole process has led to cruel and unnecessary anxiety for those families who may have thought that their children had been given harmful treatment.
After hearing detailed evidence from the complainants, from 22 GMC witnesses and from three experts, the GMC panel concluded that there was no case to answer and abandoned its case. No evidence was presented to the Panel to show that any baby had been damaged by CNEP or by poor quality care. One independent GMC expert described the conduct of the CNEP trial as outstanding and another expressed regret that the longstanding media campaign has deprived children of a very promising treatment.
PACA considers that this case is a disturbing demonstration of how the GMC ignores the findings of previous investigations. The issues in this case had already been investigated by the doctors’ employing Trustiii, the NHS Regional Office and Staffordshire Police. Professor Rod Griffiths concluded in 2006 that “CNEP did no more damage than any other treatment that might have been used to try and help these [sick, preterm] infants.(iv) Others had previously stated that “the conduct of the CNEP trial was exemplary”(v). Yet this is the third time the GMC have considered this complaint over 11 years and in doing so the GMC Panel acknowledged that delays in the GMC process had breached the human rights of the doctors under investigation as set out in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
PACA is concerned that GMC reform has led to the pendulum swinging so far in the direction of protecting patients that the doctors’ rights are being abused and that this may deter those doctors who must act on behalf of the vulnerable child. The RCPCH passed a motion at its AGM in March 2008 expressing “grave concerns over current GMC procedures for dealing with cases related to child protection”. Whilst this Hearing was about a research study in newborn infants and not ostensibly about child protection, it is part of a pattern targeting doctors who have been involved in child protection. Two of these doctors had pioneered the use of covert surveillance to detect life-threatening child abuse. One of these, David Southall, is currently appealing his erasure from the medical register arising out of his child protection work. The GMC does not recognise vexatious complaints. These complainants are putting vulnerable children at risk by trying to discredit certain types of child abuse, particularly FII, and by recruiting the GMC to discredit those who make that diagnosis.
The GMC must reform its procedures to ensure justice for both patients and doctors and, in particular, to support those doctors whose duty is to protect vulnerable children.
i Allegations of forgery, fraud and killing babies have been repeatedly made against medical staff over the last 11 years, led by the complainants in the Fitness to Practise Hearing concluded today.
ii The CNEP trial was a research study undertaken to examine whether the use of Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) could help reduce the incidence of chronic lung disease of prematurity. It was carried out in two newborn intensive care units at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, London and the North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent between 1989 and 1993.
iii The North Staffordshire Hospital suspended two out of the three doctors from 1999 to 2001 for 20 and 27 months, whilst undertaking inquiries into their work in research and child protection.
iv Quote from Griffiths R. CNEP and research governance. Lancet 2006;367:1037-38.
v Quote from Hey E, Chalmers I. Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process. BMJ 2000:321:1-8
