Letters
GMC may not be entitled to conclude that assault occurred
EDITOR,--The finding by the General Medical Council's professional conduct committee that the anaesthetist in the case discussed by John Mitchell and others was guilty of serious professional misconduct raises serious issues.1 The merits or otherwise of the finding are one thing; more serious is the fact that the committee seemed to conclude that, in inserting a suppository without specific consent, the doctor assaulted his patient. This is a grave conclusion and arguably one that the committee is not entitled to reach.
Assault is either a criminal offence or a civil wrong. In either case it is a technical legal matter, and a person cannot be said to have assaulted another unless the specific legal requirements of assault are present. If in saying "and thus assaulted her" the committee is suggesting that the criminal offence of assault was committed then one must ask what right it has to reach this conclusion.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Relevant Article
- A fundamental problem of consent
- John Mitchell
BMJ 1995 310: 43-46.[Extract] [Full Text]
This Article
- Full text
- Respond to this article
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me when responses are posted
- Alert me when a correction is posted
Services
- Email this article to a friend
- Find similar articles in BMJ
- Find similar articles in PubMed
- Add article to my folders
- Download to citation manager
- Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Related Content
-
Other anaesthesia
-
Codes of professional ethics
-
Legal and forensic medicine
- Professional conduct and regulation
- Relevant Article
- Find this article in its weekly table of contents
Bookmark with
What's new
Latest blogs
Services
Tools
Online poll
Resources
Rapid responses for this article
There are no rapid responses for this article.Most read
Print issues
