Abstract

This editorial reviews the recent judgement by the MPTS of Dr Pandian's apology for distress caused as an admission of guilt in a peculiar scenario where contemporaneous notes made of an examination by Dr Pandian were discounted in favour of a recall by a patient of the event- of whether a physical examination had occurred. The punitive sanction by the MPTS appears to have gone against the regulator's guidance to professionals following the Duty of Candour regulation of 2014, amending the Health & Social Care Act 2008. The editorial reviews the construct of honesty, the prevalence of dishonesty in the profession and whether recall bias may have influenced the scenario. The background of institutional racism against minority communities believed by many in the profession to exist in the health service and the actions of the regulator are also considered in this case.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.