Categories
- Features
- Foreign News
- General Practice
- Health Management
- Hospital Medicine
- Industrial Relations
- Information Technology
- Interviews
- Medico-Legal
- News
- Obituary
- Planning and Development
- Private Healthcare
- Public Health
- Regulation
- Research and Education
Archives
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- February 2007
Tagcloud
abortion, abuse, acute care, addiction, administration, alcohol, alternative medicine, arthritis, autoimmune disorders, blood, breast cancer, Brendan Drumm, cancer, capacity, cardiovascular disease, CervicalCheck, charity, children, clinical directors, co-location, community care, competence assurance, Competition Authority, complaints, consultants, cosmetic surgery, costs, cross-border, cutbacks, cystic fibrosis, Department of Health, diabetes, disability, Down's syndrome, drugs, e-health, education, elderly, emergency medicine, epilepsy, equity, ESRI, EWTD, fertility, Fitness to Practice, fractures, funding, General Election, genetics, GPs, Hanly report, HIQA, HIV, HPSC, HSE, hse, human tissue, hygiene, IBTS, ICGP, IHCA, IMB, immunity, IMO, imo, industrial action, influenza, INO, insurance, Irish Healthcare Awards, IT, locums, LRC, lung disease, maternity, MAUs, media, medical cards, Medical Council, medical school, medico-legal, men's health, mental health, migraine, MRSA, NCHDs, needle-stick injury, neurology, NHS, Non-EU doctors, North East, NTPF, nurses, nursing home, nutrition, obesity, obstetrics, Ombudsman, out-of-hours, palliative care, pandemic, patient records, PCRS (GMS), pharmaceuticals, pharmacy, politics, practice management, pregnancy, prescribing, primary care, privatisation, quality, radiology, radiotherapy, RCPI, RCSI, reconfiguration, recruitment, regional hospitals, research, savings, screening, sexual assault, sexual health, smoking, sports medicine, stem cells, stroke, suicide, surgery, transplants, transport, tuberculosis, vaccine, Vhi, waiting lists, WHO, women's health, work-life balance
«Previous article | Next article»
GMC resumes inquiry into Dr Wakefield
The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is due to resume its public inquiry into Dr Andrew Wakefield next week.
The GMC’s Fitness to Practise Panel has set aside 25 days for this latest session, which starts on November 19 and is due to conclude on December 23.
Together with Prof John Walker-Smith and Prof Simon Murch, Dr Wakefield is being investigated over allegations of serious professional misconduct in relation to a research study involving young children from 1996-98, published in the Lancet, which suggested a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
Vaccination rates fell sharply after Dr Wakefield questioned the safety of MMR, raising fears of a measles epidemic.
The GMC has stated that it ‘cannot arbitrate between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research’. However, it is inquiring into allegations that the three practitioners undertook the research without proper ethical approval, failed to conduct the research in accordance with the application submitted to the ethics committee, and failed to treat the children admitted into the study in accordance with the terms of the approval.
It is alleged that the performance of such investigations as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures was also contrary to the clinical interests of the children.
The GMC is also inquired into allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose his involvement in various MMR litigations, his receipt of funding from the Legal Aid Board and his involvement in a patent relating to a new vaccine to the editor of the Lancet, which was contrary to his duties as a senior author of the paper.
Posted in Regulation on 11 November 2009
Tags: vaccine
Comments
When will this stupid witch hunt end? This is an interesting and "telling" quote:
"The GMC has stated that it ‘cannot arbitrate between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research"
If the GMC cannot/is not willing to do this, then this whole exercise is useless, as there were no parents or patients who had any complaints against these doctors. The complaints were forwarded by Brian Deer, "et al" (whoever they may have been,...).
Posted by: Helkie on Thursday 12 November 2009
"If the GMC cannot/is not willing to do this, then this whole exercise is useless, as there were no parents or patients who had any complaints against these doctors"
If there is wrong doing exposed in the conduct of the studies, lack of patient complaints against the Doctors is not a bar to investigation. Indeed, in many studies what may be unethical may not be seen by the patients/parents concerned precisely because they are in a position of relative lack of power (in terms of knowledge - about risks- and perceived authority) in relation to the researcher. That is why we protect patients by having ethics systems in place and why examining breaches is so important. The system of ethics in clinical research applies to all and is not solely dependent on complaints. If Helkie wishes to dispense with ethics related to clinical research, that's a very dangerous route to take....
Posted by: Anthony Cox on Thursday 12 November 2009
Helkie's commentary suggests that, between the AIM of Wakefield's research and the METHODS of that research, the only one that the GMC has the remit to address is the AIM. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When Wakefield's methods of research unnecessarily cause his patients danger, harm or pain, or when they bring the profession of medicine into disrepute, the GMC is certainly within its authority to sanction him for those methods - and this would be the case EVEN IF the theories Wakefield was trying to explore through his unethical methods turned out to be correct. Does Helkie think that there is some other regulatory body whose function it is to reprimand a doctor who pays children at his son's birthday party for samples of their blood, or does Helkie think that's how a scientific professional obtains control samples??
Posted by: Antaeus Feldspar on Friday 13 November 2009
More articles from IMT News
Wakefield, if his misconduct is ruled true, should be held liable for the suffering and deaths of all the vaccine preventable disease increases in the UK and elsewhere.
Posted by: MikeMa on Wednesday 11 November 2009