Regulation of the medical profession has become a tool to oppress doctors.

  Dr Manjula Arora case (NHS-UK) unmasks the everyday struggle of the doctors in present era. Being undervalued and demonized, forced to work as sub-servant to administrators and regulators are considered new normal and has become an accepted form of harassment.  Fatigue and burnout are thought to be routine side effects of being a doctor or nurse.   The unhindered over-regulation has left no stone unturned in spreading hatred and creating an environment of mistrust against the medical profession.  Single stray or a trivial incident   is projected    as an example to portray poor image of medical profession as generalization and as a token of the ‘excellent’ work done by administrators and regulators.   Doctors have become soft targets because of their nature of work as they deal with life and death.   Any trivial issues such as semantics used by Dr Manjula Arora (in this case) were blown out of proportion  and   GMC finds this  as an  opportunity  to send a strict message to the whole profession.  Such incidence  show that regulators and administrators  can use the nature of doctors’ work to be  used against medical profession to make saviours as an  easy prey for  punishments   on the pretext of  dishonesty, negligence or semantics being used  as  legal weapons by law-enforcers, even in case of a perceived bias. In the process of such ‘tokenism’ administrators prove their relevance to the system.

       Regulation of the medical profession has become a tool to oppress doctors. Driving the narrative of doctors as “perfect” beings causes more harm to the doctor-patient relationship than not. Constantly seeking to attain perfection is the very approach that leads to burn out, and more mistakes- causing patient harm.

Dr Manjula Arora’s case

Dr Manjula Arora’s case

Dr Arora has been a doctor since 1988 and is of good character. She asked her employer for a laptop. For context, most employees would reasonably expect their employer to provide work-related IT equipment. She was told that none were available, but her interest would be noted for the next roll-out. Many people would interpret this positive response to mean that they would get a laptop in due course. Clearly if her employer did not intend for her to have a laptop, they could simply have said so. Dr Arora spoke to her IT department about getting a laptop and said she had been ‘promised’ one.

And that’s it. That is the entire extent of her ‘misconduct’.

One could regard her statement as a minor exaggeration, or loose terminology, or careless language or verbal shorthand over a trivial subject.  But no one  should consider it to amount to ‘dishonesty’ unless interpret it in biased manner.

The tribunal took a different view. They concluded that ordinary, decent people would consider her use of the single word ‘promised’ as dishonest.  The tribunal further decided that this so-called dishonesty amounted to misconduct.

They also considered that the misconduct was serious.

They decided her fitness to practice was impaired, and that it was necessary to suspend her to send a message to the profession.The regulator has a difficult task. Good regulation protects patients. Poor regulation harms patients, because doctors will run away from a toxic regulatory environment.

Manjula Arora case: the GMC stumbles again? -BMJ

      The case of Manjula Arora, a GP in Manchester, who has been suspended for a month for supposed “dishonesty” about a laptop, was picked up by a few colleagues, and social media did its work of ensuring the pick-up rate increased exponentially.  One always worries about the latest “MedTwitter” controversy. But this one has come on back of seething annoyance among many doctors about our regulator—the General Medical Council (GMC)—and its perceived bias, with cases such as those of Hadiza Bawa-Garba and Omer Karim still fresh in our memories.

Couple this with the recent Medical Workforce Race Equality Standard (MWRES) data confirming a clear association of increased referrals and convictions on the basis of racial background—or indeed country of origin as regards training—and this case lit the touch paper.

If one considers the publicly available details of the whole trial, you have to scratch your head and wonder how it got to this stage?   Would this happen if the name of the individual was, for example, Michael Andrews?  

The relevance of this case stood on two things—any harm to the patient population, which, to me, should be the primary aim of the GMC, and then dishonesty and disrepute brought upon the medical community.

This ruling makes it clear that there is no risk of harm to the public: “The Tribunal considered that no issues in relation to patient safety had been identified in this case. Dr Arora is a competent clinician, and there is no necessity to protect the public.” That should have ended the issue. But the complications started when interpretation about honesty came into the picture.

“The Tribunal attached significant weight to the fact that Dr Arora’s misconduct was a single incident in relation to the use of a single word, with no evidence of any other similar episodes of dishonesty before or after the event.” If you go into the details of the case, it becomes even more murky, as it’s the interpretation of a word—subjective at best— against the background of someone for whom English is not their first language. But it was deemed enough to warrant a month’s suspension according to the tribunal: “this period would send an appropriate message to the medical profession and to the wider public that Dr Arora’s misconduct, albeit relating to a single fleeting moment of dishonesty and not a planned deception.”

This raises a multitude of questions. Firstly, there is the principle that one fleeting moment of dishonesty could result in suspension. If that’s the standard, then the profession is indeed in trouble, with the GMC now making subjective judgements and being an arbiter of what is deemed to be honest or not. Where does the line get drawn? Discussions about patients or conversations about whether Santa exists or not?

Secondly, and more importantly, there is the suspicion of bias in how that law is being applied. Daniel Sokol has written a recent column which discusses the notion of doctors as the “saintly being”; the epitome of perfection at all times. Yet, within all of us exist the same prejudices and flaws as for the rest of the population. Sokol suggests that doctors have to be “scrupulously honest—in and out of work—unless the situation obviously allows for ethical dishonesty.” Yet he makes no mention of the fact that the GMC seems to apply that principle unevenly across the board. I accept that it can be difficult to see the “problem” others are complaining about, but I can assure you there are very few international medical graduates who have read about Arora’s case and not thought “I know why this has happened.”

There is professionalism, but there is humanity too, and I would propose that driving the narrative of doctors as “perfect” beings causes more harm to the doctor-patient relationship than not. What is honesty? Saying to patients that they need to wait for another 16 hours to get a bed, or holding the hand of the elderly frail lady, comforting her and saying “I am sure something will come up shortly”? It brings back the concept that being a doctor is a vocation. Constantly seeking to attain perfection is the very approach that leads to burn out, and more mistakes—causing patient harm.

Finally, if the role of the GMC is to protect the public from “single moments of untruth,” as this destroys the view among the public that doctors are saints (although I am pretty sure the public don’t see doctors like that in modern life), then there needs to be a discussion of that concept, of the overreach into personal lives, and of where the line is drawn as regards the GMC’s intrusion and inordinate application of that principle. I would suggest the role of the regulator should be for the rare circumstances when there is an interest in behaviour not being repeated or where it cannot be dealt with effectively by an employer.

I work with the GMC closely these days, and I find it immensely frustrating to see such cases as they undermine some significant hard work that is being done by individuals who are determined to change the narrative that the GMC is biased. I would encourage all concerned to look into this case, review it, learn from it, and offer support to Arora. There is a lot of work in hand to repair the damage from the Bawa Garba case, and this case could reinforce those sentiments, which we must avoid.

The intention may once have been for doctors to be Superman, but modern times and the foibles of individuals only permit a Batman. It’s worth remembering neither of them work to harm the public.

     Advantages-Disadvantage of being a doctor

     25 factors- why health care is expensive

REEL Heroes Vs Real Heroes

 21 occupational risks to doctors and nurses

Covid paradox: salary cut for doctors other paid at home

   Medical-Consumer protection Act- Pros and Cons

Expensive Medical College  seat- Is it worth it?