Ever since the General Medical Council was established by act of parliament in 1858, the medical profession has been left to regulate itself. In return for freedom from political interference, the GMC undertakes to ensure that doctors on its register are fit to practice, and that professional misconduct is punished by removal from the register. However, the 'Bristol case', which involved the deaths of a number of babies at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and the conviction of GP Harold Shipman on multiple murder charges, has ...
Read More
Ever since the General Medical Council was established by act of parliament in 1858, the medical profession has been left to regulate itself. In return for freedom from political interference, the GMC undertakes to ensure that doctors on its register are fit to practice, and that professional misconduct is punished by removal from the register. However, the 'Bristol case', which involved the deaths of a number of babies at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, and the conviction of GP Harold Shipman on multiple murder charges, has raised serious questions as to the wisdom of leaving doctors to regulate themselves. Doctors value their clinical freedom highly, but clinical freedom can only be retained if the results are acceptable to the public. The absence of patient choice in a centralised, state-run healthcare system makes it imperative that patients should have confidence that their treatment will be of a high standard. At the very least, there should be mechanisms for detecting and removing homicidal practitioners. Regulating Doctors considers the history of the regulation of the medical profession, and the question of whether or not self-regulation should be allowed to continue. Should the state play a more active role in vetting doctors' performance? Should doctors be willing to submit themselves to regular check-ups for the good of our health? The contributors are drawn from the medical and academic worlds. James Johnson is a distinguished NHS consultant and a member of the BMA Council, and Dr Pickering's background is in general and medico-legal practice. Professor Salter and Professor Gladstone are long-standing contributors to public policy debate and Professor Stacey is one of the foremost experts in medical regulation. "In a collection of essays, Regulating Doctors, the Institute for the Study of Civil Society accuses the GMC of 'shielding bad doctors from normal accountability' through its monopoly power to license doctors...David Green, institute director, said: 'Without the official seal of approval of the GMC, doctors would have to rely on their reputation, technical competence, character and personal qualities to attract patients. So long as they are on the medical register and so long as the medical register is controlled by fellow doctors who can be counted on to be lenient in virtually all circumstances, they are safe from serious scrutiny.'" The Daily Telegraph
Read Less
Add this copy of Regulating Doctors to cart. $19.51, good condition, Sold by Anybook rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Lincoln, UNITED KINGDOM, published 2000 by Institute For The Study Of Civil Society.
Edition:
2000, Civitas:Institute for the Study of Civil Society
Publisher:
Civitas:Institute for the Study of Civil Society
Published:
2000
Language:
English
Alibris ID:
17009078832
Shipping Options:
Standard Shipping: $4.99
Choose your shipping method in Checkout. Costs may vary based on destination.
Seller's Description:
This is an ex-library book and may have the usual library/used-book markings inside. This book has soft covers. In good all round condition. Please note the Image in this listing is a stock photo and may not match the covers of the actual item, 300grams, ISBN: 9781903386019.
