Self-regulation by medical profession

Abstract

Your Oct 10 commentary1Horton R UK medicine: what are we to do?.Lancet. 1998; 352: 1166Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar on self-regulation is predictably hostile to the British Medical Association (BMA). You imply that we have been inactive on this vital issue but this is simply not the case. We have played a major part in developing proposals to make self-regulation work at local and national level. We supported the development of the General Medical Council's performance procedures and we have developed guidance for medical directors on monitoring doctors' performance. We advise and support whistleblowers.On April 29, this year, we published our proposals jointly with the Joint Consultants Committee, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Council of Post Graduate Medical Deans, and the Council of Heads of UK Medical Schools.Published papers do not of course tell the whole story. What is probably more important is the role of the BMA in helping to ensure that the profession learns the lessons of the Bristol tragedy.The BMA is aware that professional self-regulation is a privilege that can be maintained only with public consent and public confidence. To confuse legitimate and substantiated evidence to our independent review Body with totally unacceptable performance by a few doctors is mischievous in the extreme.The debate at our Annual Representative Meeting yielded a frank exchange on the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. In every public statement we have made, in every training workshop we have organised, and in every discussion with Government ministers and with colleagues, we have argued that the profession must embrace greater accountability and must not hesitate to act on concerns about doctors' performance. Your Oct 10 commentary1Horton R UK medicine: what are we to do?.Lancet. 1998; 352: 1166Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar on self-regulation is predictably hostile to the British Medical Association (BMA). You imply that we have been inactive on this vital issue but this is simply not the case. We have played a major part in developing proposals to make self-regulation work at local and national level. We supported the development of the General Medical Council's performance procedures and we have developed guidance for medical directors on monitoring doctors' performance. We advise and support whistleblowers. On April 29, this year, we published our proposals jointly with the Joint Consultants Committee, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Council of Post Graduate Medical Deans, and the Council of Heads of UK Medical Schools. Published papers do not of course tell the whole story. What is probably more important is the role of the BMA in helping to ensure that the profession learns the lessons of the Bristol tragedy. The BMA is aware that professional self-regulation is a privilege that can be maintained only with public consent and public confidence. To confuse legitimate and substantiated evidence to our independent review Body with totally unacceptable performance by a few doctors is mischievous in the extreme. The debate at our Annual Representative Meeting yielded a frank exchange on the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. In every public statement we have made, in every training workshop we have organised, and in every discussion with Government ministers and with colleagues, we have argued that the profession must embrace greater accountability and must not hesitate to act on concerns about doctors' performance.