Madam, – Your medical correspondent Muiris Houston is usually insightful, but his article of March 19th about the Medical Council is based on a misunderstanding.
He is concerned that the Medical Council did not show good judgment in its choice of the first Fitness to Practise case to be held in public.
The truth is that the Medical Council is not free to “choose” cases in some arbitrary fashion. The recent case simply was the first case before it under the new Act.
Whenever a complaint against a doctor is to come before a Fitness to Practise Inquiry of the Medical Council, each witness, including a complainant, who is required to give evidence on behalf of the Medical Council is initially met by the Council’s solicitor. The witnesses (including any complainants) are informed that the inquiry will be held in public unless an application is made by the doctor, any complainant or any witness for all or part of the inquiry to be held in private.
Under the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 all inquiries will be held in public unless an application is made to hold all or part of the hearing in private, and the Fitness to Practise Committee is satisfied that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to do so.
There are in excess of 300 complaints against doctors made to the Medical Council each year. The Preliminary Proceedings Committee examines each of these and decides whether there should be an inquiry.
Approximately 30 of such initial complaints proceed to a Fitness to Practise Inquiry each year.
At this first public Fitness to Practise Inquiry, the inquiry chairman respectfully requested the media to exercise sensitivity and discretion when reporting the matter.
The media, as is their right, chose to ignore this request. – Yours, etc,