Reference to private messages in a disciplinary hearing.

political analyst · 09-04-2021 12:26am #1

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9439063/Group-10-doctors-face-struck-swapping-offensive-messages-WhatsApp.html

A group of 10 doctors face being struck off for swapping 'offensive' messages and pictures on a secret WhatsApp group for two years.

Police uncovered years' worth of messages after an unrelated investigation which cleared the medics, according to the Sun.

But members of the group now face disciplinary hearings after the case was referred to Health Education England.

The content of the messages sent between the doctors has not yet been disclosed, but is expected to emerge as the case progresses.

Some of the accused are understood to have qualified in just the past five years, some of them as GPs, and to work in south London or the Home Counties.

A High Court judge ruled that the tribunal should go ahead. She wrote:

As the claimants accept, private communications are not exempt from consideration in professional disciplinary proceedings.

According to an article in The Times (UK), published on 7 April 2021, a doctor was struck off in 2018 for bombarding a younger colleague with more than 100 WhatsApp messages a day, some of which were sexually explicit.

If the inappropriate comments made by the doctors in the WhatsApp group that is the subject of the case were jokes and were not meant to be seen by the people who were the subjects of the jokes, then what has it got to do with the ability of those doctors to do their jobs?

After all, patients don't think about what the doctors who treat them say in private conversations among themselves. People of all backgrounds make inappropriate comments in private conversations all the time. For example, it's obvious that the gardaí who were commenting about a Corrib gas field female protester were not actually going to commit a sex crime - because they were only joking!

jimmycrackcorm · 09-04-2021 12:47am

I don't think this is a private conversation because it's made to a group. But even so, if someone in the group shares the contents of a WhatsApp group, how is there any expectation that they shouldn't be allowed to do?

Dublin Lad2021 · 09-04-2021 1:27am

It's not a private conversation since they're all colleagues, they're connected by work and therefore it's an extension of the working relationship i.e similar to Christmas party whatever.

You might not agree with it but people get fired all the time based on their behaviour online which isn't anything to do with their ability to do the job but more to do with not making the employer look bad in the eyes of the public, not violating company policies around communication etc.

political analyst · 09-04-2021 2:00pm

Dublin Lad2021 wrote: »

It's not a private conversation since they're all colleagues, they're connected by work and therefore it's an extension of the working relationship i.e similar to Christmas party whatever.

You might not agree with it but people get fired all the time based on their behaviour online which isn't anything to do with their ability to do the job but more to do with not making the employer look bad in the eyes of the public, not violating company policies around communication etc.

But isn't a gathering of professionals off duty still private?

There's no indication as to why the police were investigating those doctors in the first place. How would anything those doctors said among themselves in a closed group on social media affect patients' trust in them? What could possibly be more important than saving people's lives and health? It's completely different from dismissing the employee of a supermarket for comments made about the employer.

hullaballoo · 09-04-2021 4:21pm

This is the way the meaning of the term "bringing the profession into disrepute" has started to be used by professional regulators in the UK in recent years. It's a way to use existing law to deal with a novel problem. The problem isn't doctors having a private conversation where they are let's say less than flattering about patients etc., the issue is that the likes of WhatsApp chats are a permanent written record of what someone has "said" or written.

We all know not to put something you wouldn't want a Court/regulator to see in an email, we just have to learn that there's no difference with chat apps really.

There is also an increase in professional regulators looking at the conduct of professionals when they are "off duty" so to speak more closely now. This is probably due again in part to advancing technology meaning that a minor indiscretion after a few Campari and sodas is no longer so easy to walk away from.

political analyst · 09-04-2021 4:51pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

This is the way the meaning of the term "bringing the profession into disrepute" has started to be used by professional regulators in the UK in recent years. It's a way to use existing law to deal with a novel problem. The problem isn't doctors having a private conversation where they are let's say less than flattering about patients etc., the issue is that the likes of WhatsApp chats are a permanent written record of what someone has "said" or written.

We all know not to put something you wouldn't want a Court/regulator to see in an email, we just have to learn that there's no difference with chat apps really.

There is also an increase in professional regulators looking at the conduct of professionals when they are "off duty" so to speak more closely now. This is probably due again in part to advancing technology meaning that a minor indiscretion after a few Campari and sodas is no longer so easy to walk away from.

If the comments made by those doctors among themselves were sexist, is it credible to believe that women who could be their patients but are not yet known to those doctors would take it personally? Inappropriate as it was, it's not as bad as a situation in which a doctor who has Jewish patients would be caught in the act of making antisemitic remarks. It's as if each of the doctors in the case that I've referred to in the OP is being treated as if he is Josef Mengele.

GM228 · 09-04-2021 5:24pm

The Daily Mail is a wee bit behind the times, the judgement was delivered in March 2020, and there's a bit more to it as some of the sexually explicit messages dealt with a vulnerable person under their care.

The reported judgement contains the following warning - "If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.".

The matter is still ongoing so in the interests of sub judice it is best not to comment on it further.

One eyed Jack · 09-04-2021 5:29pm

political analyst wrote: »

If the comments made by those doctors among themselves were sexist, is it credible to believe that women who could be their patients but are not yet known to those doctors would take it personally? Inappropriate as it was, it's not as bad as a situation in which a doctor who has Jewish patients would be caught in the act of making antisemitic remarks. It's as if each of the doctors in the case that I've referred to in the OP is being treated as if he is Josef Mengele.

The issue isn’t just whether or not anyone outside of the group was or wasn’t aware of conversations within the group. The issue is whether or not the conduct of the medical professionals in question had, or could have, an impact upon their fitness to practice medicine.

They’re not being treated as if they are Josef Mengele, they are being treated as medical professionals who are held to certain standards of appropriate and professional conduct by the independent body with responsibility for making such determinations - the MPTS.

Whether their conduct isn’t as bad as someone else doing something else, isn’t the issue.

Reference to private messages in a disciplinary hearing.

Comments