Daily Archives: March 19, 2012

Problems at the GMC

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Family Law

≈ 2 Comments

Many thanks to Shaun O’Connell for kindly drawing our attention to this news item. The General Medical Council are currently reviewing Dr Hibbert, one of the leading psychiatrists who up until recently worked in the family courts, but this latest article will cause concern for many. Whilst we don’t think that if Dr Hibbert were stripped of his licence to practice that he would return, due to the very high level of exposure his case has been met with, the reality from this article and from admissions by the GMC itself are cause for concern.

Whilst only 17 doctors were found continuing on with their practice post removal in 2009 (as stated by a Channel 4 investigation), it is not clear what the official figure may be.

Last year, 106 doctors were suspended by the GMC for up to a year and a further 72 were struck off.

And the GMC’s own website makes for very sobering reading. Going on to the Fitness to Practice Panel Hearings, it is evident that there are a lot of doctors out there who are under review. The Hearings and Decisions page is home to these Fitness to practice Panel reviews, and you can search recent decisions here. For a full list of recent decisions, simply visit this page.
From malpractice to indecent assault, these hearings make for sobering reading indeed.
If you would like to check a doctor’s registration status, you can do so, here.

Equal Marriage Consultation: Have Your Say

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Family Law

≈ Leave a comment

The Home Office has today launched the much talked about Equal Civil Marriage Consultation which sets out the government’s proposals to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage.

The key proposals the government will be looking at are:

  • to enable same-sex couples to have a civil marriage i.e. only civil ceremonies in a register office or approved premises (like a hotel)
  • to make no changes to religious marriages. This will continue to only be legally possible between a man and a woman
  • to retain civil partnerships for same-sex couples and allow couples already in a civil partnership to convert this into a marriage
  • civil partnership registrations on religious premises will continue as is currently possible i.e. on a voluntary basis for faith groups and with no religious content
  • individuals will, for the first time, be able legally to change their gender without having to end their marriage

At the moment, the law allows same-sex couples to enter into a civil partnership but not a civil marriage. In reality, what is the difference? Our dual system reeks of apartheid and really does nothing to offer a meaningful explanation for the divide. Well, that’s how we feel, but you can have your say by filling out the consultation.

For anyone interested in sharing their views with the Home Office, you can access the consultation here.

And you can complete the online form (the part with the questions to answer), here.

Cartoon drawn by Steve Bell, courtesy of the Guardian Newspaper.

Question It!

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Researching Reform

≈ 9 Comments

Good Monday Moaning! We know you are moaning because it is a Monday and we are moaning…… but we are hoping that the very weak and milky tea we are drinking will lift our spirits and make the beginning of the week enjoyable.

Our question this week stems from what was by far the most important and interesting news article of last week, that of Dr Hibbert, one of the leading psychiatrists in the family justice system, now being investigated for malpractice, having produced reports and recommendations which nearly always sought to remove children from their parents using often very worrying methods.

So, if Dr Hibbert is found to be guilty of malpractice, what do you think should happen next?

Possible answer: All his patients’ files should be reviewed and children wrongfully taken placed back in the care of their parents, where possible. A full review by the main board of psychiatry should be done to ensure that a proper ands rigorous set of guidelines are implemented over what can and can’t be viewed as definitive psychiatric practice and established conditions, leaving no room for subjective reasoning leading to conclusive assumptions.

And the family justice system should open its doors so that expert practices can be aired and fine tuned, a little like the main testing ground for new and legitimate practices. The family justice system has the chance of being a friendly, futuristic and leading element in the development of sound professional methods in a wide variety of fields. It should seize that opportunity now.