Policy responses and statements
- Name of organisation:
- General Medical Counci
- Name of policy document:
- Consultations on Supplementary Guidance:
(1) Acting as an Expert Witness
(2) Writing References
- Deadline for response:
- 26 March 2007
Background: A new edition of Good Medical Practice was launched in November 2006. It is accompanied by a series of supplementary documents which expand on some of the high level principles in Good Medical Practice, providing further explanation and examples so doctors and patients can better understand how the principles should be applied in practice. The GMC is currently consulting on two new pieces of supplementary guidance, on 'Acting as an Expert Witness' and 'Writing References'. These are both areas that have been identified where further guidance for doctors might be helpful.
Acting as an expert witness:
'Good Medical Practice' focuses on the principles which underpin good care. When doctors act as expert witnesses, they take on a different role from that of a doctor providing treatment or advice to patients. The principles set out in 'Good Medical Practice' also apply to doctors working as expert witnesses. This guidance explains how the principles set out in 'Good Medical Practice' apply to the work of the medical expert witness. The role of the expert witness is to assist the court on specialist or technical matters within their expertise.
Writing References:
This supplementary guidance is intended to provide more detail about how to comply with the principles outlined in 'Good Medical Practice' and in 'Management for Doctors' in relating to writing references.
COMMENTS ON
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
CONSULTATION ON SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE: ACTING AS AN EXPERT WITNESS
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the General Medical Council on its consultation on Supplementary Guidance: Acting as an Expert Witness.
The College accepts that guidance in this important area will support the correct application of judgement, and the document is inevitably peppered with terms such as “reasonable” or “relevant” which are open to interpretation. There is a danger that witnesses may be over- defensive in their evidence as a result. However, with this caveat, the College welcomes this supplementary guidance and has the following comments:
Para 4: The sentence reminding witnesses of their overriding duty to the court might benefit from highlighting to emphasise its importance.
Para 5: It might be helpful to add that seeking clarity on instructions should happen before the hearing.
Para 6: It might be helpful to clarify when doctors engaged as expert witnesses should themselves seek advice from third parties and when this should be the responsibility of the court.
Para 8: The sentence advising of the need to summarise evidence where there is a range of opinion is also critical and might benefit from emphasis through highlighting (as for para 4 above).
Para 11: Keeping up to date. It is unclear whether this implies that doctors who are available as expert witnesses need to remain “accredited”. How does this affect the specialist doctor who may be called upon to act as an expert witness infrequently?
Para 13: Should this be strengthened by placing the obligation on the witness to be certain that consent has been obtained eg “If you are uncertain whether consent has been obtained …”?
General:
-
Should the guidance include that doctors are under no obligation to act as expert witnesses?
-
Specific examples may be helpful, as in the Confidentiality booklet.
Footnotes:
3. As cases can take considerable time to come to court, how likely is it that experienced witnesses may not be eligible due the exclusion of doctors who have been retired for 2 years?
4. Has the document been screened for differences in English and Scots law? Also, this note and the para to which it refers contain legal terminology which would benefit from some simplification.
COMMENTS ON
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
CONSULTATION ON SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE: WRITING REFERENCES
The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the General Medical Council on its consultation on Supplementary Guidance: Writing References. The College welcomes this supplementary guidance and has the following comments:
Para 9
It should be clear that consent from the candidate seeking the reference is required.
General
To balance the document, it might be helpful to confirm that giving inappropriate negative references, which could bias against an acceptable candidate, would constitute bad practice.
Should the document include advice to doctors when, on being asked for a reference, they are uncomfortable as the reference would be less than complimentary? Under such circumstances, does the doctor have an obligation to give the reference anyway?
Footnotes
4. The College understands that the Scottish Information Commissioner does not deal with data protection. This is handled by the UK Information Commissioner, although he has a small office in Scotland (which is confusing). Perhaps the footnote could be clearer?
Copies of this response are available from:
Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.
Tel: 0131 225 7324 ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939
[26 March 2007] |
