Madam, – Regarding the first case brought before the Fitness to Practice Committee of the Medical Council, I agree with Dr Tom Hogan’s letter (April 13th) – the media coverage, justified or otherwise, was totally predictable, especially in view of the public announcement by the Medical Council of the event.
When the legislation for the Medical Practitioner’s Act, 2007 was making its way through the Seanad, I was particularly concerned about public hearings of complaints against doctors. My concern was more for the patient than the doctor. Doctors are in a much better position than patients to realise what information may be brought up at such proceedings.
I particularly remember an exchange I had with Minister Mary Harney on April 4th, 2007, when the committee and remaining stages of the Bill were going through the Seanad. Regarding the holding of the hearings in public, I asked if it would not be possible to have cases reported on in an anonymous way similar to the way in which an accredited court reporter attends the family courts. With the permission of those involved, he or she writes up the cases so that the general public does not have to rely on anecdotal evidence, because family court cases must be heard in camera. Carol Coulter fulfilled this role with great expertise.
Senator Geraldine Feeney, who had been a member of the Medical Council in the past, supported my concerns about the public hearings, pointing out that the practitioner is not found guilty of professional misconduct in all cases. (As happened in this case, Dr A. was acquitted.) Senator Feeney tellingly said “Given the nature of these complaints, one must query in respect of the proceedings what is best in the public interest as against the curiosity or news value of the hearing of such proceedings in public”. Wise words that should definitely have been heeded by those who put this case forward for a public hearing.
Dr Maurice Guéret, in a letter on the same day, is correct in saying the council has to take responsibility for this decision.
Dr A. admitted his language was inappropriate and had apologised long ago for it. Ms McQ’s distress was real – she was particularly aggrieved apparently about the reference to sexual activity (rumpy-pumpy etc.) because she had split up with her partner and Dr A. knew this – but did she expect all this to come out in public?
Dr A. did try to address her emotional distress, whereas it would have been much easier for him to have written out a prescription for sleeping tablets, since insomnia seemed to have been the main problem.
This whole episode is most unfortunate because women with serious complaints of misconduct of a sexual sort against doctors may be deterred from reporting them. A few years ago a Cork doctor went to great lengths to force the Medical Council to hold in public a hearing on complaints made against him by women patients he had videoed without their permission, knowing it would inhibit them. After this episode only the most brash of complainants may come forward. – Yours, etc,