AS AN example of medical arrogance the case of paediatrician David Southall, found guilty this week by the GMC of abusing his professional position, is in a league of its own. Based on nothing more than watching a TV programme, he informed the police that the husband of Sally Clark — already in jail convicted of murdering two of her babies — was actually the one who had done the deed.
His crime was not in alerting the police in the first place — he is, after all, a leading expert in child abuse — but in failing to provide evidence to back up his suspicion in his subsequent report. Although relying on his own research, he did not talk to any of those involved, or present any other evidence. His report simply expanded his assertion that the husband was guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Southall emerges as an extraordinary throwback to a time when consultants were almost expected to behave with Olympian authority and patients tugged their metaphorical locks. It was a relationship that allowed no such new-fangled notions as patient choice, while the idea that patients might one day arrive in the surgery with data downloaded from the internet to challenge the doctor’s diagnosis or prescription would have been unthinkable.
While few would want to return to the film comedy world of Sir Lancelot Spratt, one crucial element of that relationship has to be retained if medicine is to work — and that is trust. A press officer from the British Medical Association claimed that doctors are still the most trusted of professionals, regularly scoring 90 per cent in MORI polls, but a combination of forces are combining to place the trust between doctor and patient in jeopardy.
Last week a Department of Health report recommended that all doctors should be accompanied by a medically trained chaperone when examining women. This was triggered by the case four years ago of GP Clifford Ayling who molested hundred of patients in his surgery over the course of 30 years. From one perspective it’s a rational move, designed to protect patients from abuse and doctors from unfounded allegations, but it suggests that neither side is to be trusted.
Advertisement
While Labour and the Conservatives attempt to outbid each other in expanding patient choice, in reality most of us have an arranged marriage with our GP — each side gets what’s given. While few patients would tolerate a Southall-style patriarch, many are no more interested in challenging their GP’s judgment than debating the finer points of tax law with their accountant. Others have the option of making their health a co-operative venture.
As in all marriages, a little give and take goes a long way.
Advertisement
Simon Crompton is away