We are gravely concerned by news that doctors found guilty of rape and sexual predation have been allowed to return to medical practice after Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearings (Report, 18 September). This raises crucial questions about the independence, processes and ethical integrity of the MPTS and its ability to protect public health and promote trust.
A fundamental conflict of interest is the MPTS’s funding, which comes indirectly from doctors’ fees, via the doctor’s regulator, the General Medical Council. The use of subjective mitigating factors, such as “character references” and “showing remorse” can also advantage doctors.
In sharp contrast to these sexual misconduct cases, doctors participating in peaceful protests over the health harms of global heating, in accordance with overwhelming scientific evidence and their GMC-defined professional responsibility to protect public health, have faced prolonged suspensions and potential removals from practice. Yet their actions neither endanger patients nor reflect on their clinical competence.
These inconsistencies are further challenged by research the GMC itself commissioned, which found that public trust in the profession was determined primarily by whether a doctor had intentionally harmed someone, rather than the legality of their action.
To keep patients safe, disciplinary processes require urgent reform. This includes separating funding and governance structures, specialist training for tribunal panels (in, for example, trauma-informed care and the climate and health emergency), objective criteria for determining sanctions, transparent reporting, and comprehensive support for complainants.
Prof Hilary Neve
GP, Plymouth
Dr Rammina Yassaie
NHS doctor and ethicist, Leeds
Annie Mitchell
Chartered psychologist, Newton Abbot, Devon
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
