Letter: Doctors undermined by 'misconduct' case
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: There was an important mis- statement in Celia Hall's report 'Doctors call for action on gossip' (27 May). It states that Dr Helena Daly is fighting an allegation of professional misconduct. The fact is that Dr Daly is fighting an allegation of personal misconduct.
The distinction is important. 'Personal misconduct' is intended for doctors who might harm patients as a result of the misues of drugs or alcohol. In making such a charge, a trust hospital is allowed to act as both accuser and judge, and to suspend a doctor after an internal inquiry. The convicted doctor has no right of appeal.
There has never been any suggestion of Dr Daly misusing drugs or alcohol and the trust that employed her acknowledged her professional work to be highly competent. But having apparently decided that Dr Daly was 'difficult', her employers brought a charge of personal misconduct on the basis of reports by staff alleging that she had upset them. Dr Daly's response is that, as a new head of department, she needed to raise her voice on occasion in the course of raising standards.
She argues that she has been criticised for the way she ran her department and that a charge of professional, not personal, misconduct is therefore the only one appropriate. She is fighting to convince a preliminary panel of this, with the backing of distinguished colleagues. If successful, she then has the right to appeal to the Department of Health.
The case has important implications for the whole medical profession, and Dr Daly has the full support of the British Medical Association. The stress of hospital work is such that few consultants would claim never to have expressed anger when notes were lost or reports not sent out promptly. If 'personal misconduct' were to be stretched to cover complaints of such incidents, the way would be open for consultants to be judged and dismissed by internal trust inquiry, with no right of appeal.
Yours faithfully,
M. I. HEATLEY
Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments