Audio-recording your consultations with NHS doctors

[nolegion]

i wanted to add some words of support to the idea of 'bedside recording': perfectly sensible and feasible, I think; and of course, a great number of 'NHS consultations' happen across a patient's hospital bedside. But boy my tech ineptitude is getting in the way.

 

What have I done, after 4 years of posting, such that this 'message box' now stretches to a wall 5 feet away?!

[honeybee13]

Hi NL.

 

I suggest you post about the wide screen problem in the 'about CAG' forum, where techy people and our Webmaster should be able to help you.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?26-Consumer-Forums-website-Post-Your-Questions-amp-Suggestions-about-this-site

 

HB

[nolegion]

Many thanks, HB. I think you may have spotted from the thread to which you referred me that I did indeed find a solution there. It is a complete mystery to me as to how I managed to change the setting that was apparently causing the problem, but it certainly seems fixed now.

[honeybee13]

Many thanks, HB. I think you may have spotted from the thread to which you referred me that I did indeed find a solution there. It is a complete mystery to me as to how I managed to change the setting that was apparently causing the problem, but it certainly seems fixed now.

 

Im a technophobe too, it's good the guys were able to help you.

 

HB

[nolegion]

From a nascent online 'community' at the British Medical Association:-

 

"I've been prompted to follow up the reactions on the net to Glyn Elwyn's 'patientgate' article (about recording by patients, printed in the BMJ last March), and I found e.g. this opinion, posted a few days ago from a (non-medical) contributor to the huge discussion thread on which that article was actually based:-

 

'I don't think covert recording implies an intention to'catch out' a doctor. It's more likely to mean that the patient is fearful of how a request to record is likely to be received - perhaps with refusal,resentment and hostility and that certainly would affect the doctor/patient relationship. Is asking worth that risk?'

 

I conclude, as a handful of other comments appended to articles etc. elsewhere also indicate, that there remains an initiative in medical hands to 'close the communication gap'. Tell patients that they are welcome to take their own audio-recording home for their 'personal, family and domestic purposes' (the wording of the relevant exemption in the Data Protection Act) – and the easiest way to get that across is simply by waiting room\area notice-board.

 

If one has some Luddite colleagues (or, worse, officious hospital 'administration') to deal with – so be it. Better to proceed confidently with candour than risk brittle doctor-patient relationships, potentially snapping to the detriment of all parties. Whatever those consulted do, patients will record – indeed, no doubt already are recording. Let's make sure that they feel confident to do so overtly. I would much prefer to know about it."

 

Ref: https://communities.bma.org.uk/bmaspace/f/21/t/314.aspx

 

(It isn't clear on what basis the poster asserts that Sali is 'non-medical'!)

[nolegion]

"And so that's my real point to you, today. That is: do not allow yourself to be bullied or denied by any doctor who would tell you NO in response to a request to record your visit."

 

From:

 

http://patients.about.com/b/2014/05/07/testing-1-2-about-recording-your-doctor-visit.htm

 

In the USA, where I assume the above-linked site is based, they have difficulties (i) that in a minority - I think currently 12 - of their States, covert recording may be attended with various forms of illegality\inadmissibility as evidence, and (ii) that healthcare is still predominantly a contractual matter, not a statutory entitlement.

 

This means that it is important to carry the day 'overtly'and as a matter of medical ethics - as the enthusiastic Trisha Torrey is certainly doing her best to make sure happens.

 

For us, of course, (i) is not applicable, and few can afford (ii).

 

This is the second time she has posted an article vehemently in favour of patients recording. If anyone had a few moments to spare, under whatever name, a word or two in support at About.com Patient Empowerment, as linked above, might be appreciated.

[Sali]

Isn't the Cumbrian policy document a duplicate of a London hospital's policy on this subject (link posted an age back)?

 

How do they get away with it? Fool authors for not checking the law before typing the document (and I bet it was out-sourced at the cost of an arm and a leg) and fool regulators for allowing it to go unchallenged.

 

The BMA poster was correct, I am non-medical (mind you there's a number of doctors and nurses at my local hospital that would fit into that category). At least he (assumption again but less sure this time) accepts that patient recording cannot be prevented and wants it out in the open. However, I have been so charred by my experiences of the health service that even if there were banners and flashing lights in the waiting room inviting me to openly record my consultation, I might still do it covertly.

 

AND I would refuse to sign any document that prevented me using the recording in litigation.

[honeybee13]

You're famous though, Sali.

 

HB

[Sali]

I'm confused why the panel 'applied the principle of proportionality, weighing your (Dr Sharma's) interests with the public interest.'

 

Why would they consider Dr Sharma's interests? He was quite aware that his actions were dishonest, unprofessional and illegal. He was not co-erced to act in the way he did. There seems to be a tendency of the Establishment to offer second-chances to some extremely dubious characters. Leopards do not change their spots, they just camouflage themselves better.

 

He should have been struck off.

 

The GMC states it's about protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and upholding standards of behaviour. What flim-flam!

[nolegion]

I think disciplinary proceedings at the GMC suffer from Mephitic Cronyitis.

 

However, proceeding with due caution on our part, let's see what the GMC does with Dr Ali Mao-Aweys, whose hearing is currently in progress.

 

I say 'with due caution', because, although arrested in connection with the allegations made, the police didn't charge him, and, quite apart from libel laws, truly a chap must have a full and fair chance to establish his innocence - and all the more so on account of the abhorrent nature of the ritual concerned

 

Currently, these are the allegations:-

 

"…that in April2012 Dr Mao-Aweys had meetings and a telephone conversation during which it isalleged that Dr Mao-Aweys offered to assist in arranging and facilitating anoperation within the United Kingdom to effect the genital mutilation of a female child or children, knowing that such an operation was illegal within the United Kingdom.

 

Additionally, it is alleged that Dr Mao-Aweys gave advice and offered to provide medication to facilitate such an operation outside the United Kingdom in order to assist with the avoidance of United Kingdom legislation banning such a practice."

 

( Source for the above is the MPTS hearings calendar:

http://www.mpts-uk.org/calendar/event_details.aspx?ID=2f625486-2add-45a0-94d5-c945d32caa3a)

 

As regards the disciplinary hearing, I derive the 'story so far' from this site:-

 

http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/

 

but have not yet found a way to link more directly to the specific relevant reports (which you reach by entering "Mao-Aweys" into theirsearch box). Therefore, I extract these three reports to date:-

……………………………………………………………………………

 

May 13, 2014

 

AWEYS:FGM DOCTOR CLAIMS HE WAS ENTRAPPED BY JOURNALISTS

 

BIRMINGHAM; HARINGEY, NORTHLONDON A doctor accused of offering to arrange a female genital mutilation(FGM) operation claims he was 'entrapped' by 'wheedling' journalists in an undercover sting. Dr Ali-Mao Aweys is accused of offering the outlawedprocedure during a phone call and meetings with a Sunday Times reporter inApril 2012. He was secretly filmed during an investigation masterminded by'Fake Sheikh' Mazher Mahmood apparently discussing so-called female circumcision with a female investigator who said she wanted treatment for two nieces. But Mao-Aweys claims he was set up by 'wheedling, luring andinstigating' of the reporter when she consulted him at his private Birmingham clinic.

 

May 15, 2014

 

MAO-AWEYS:FGM DOCTOR STING WASNOT ENTRAPMENT

 

BIRMINGHAM; HARINGEY, NORTHLONDON An undercover sting masterminded by 'Fake Sheikh' Mahzer Mahmood tocatch doctors offering to perform female genital mutilation (FGM) was notentrapment, a tribunal has ruled. Dr Ali Mao-Aweys claimed he was set up by the 'wheedling, luring and instigating' of a female Sunday Times reporter who posedas a patient at his private Birminghamclinic. He was secretly filmed by the investigator apparently discussing femalecircumcision for the reporter's fictional 10 and 13-year-old nieces who weresaid to be visiting from Ghana. When asked about the procedure Mao-Aweys allegedly said: 'Ah yes. I can helpyou.'

 

May 16, 2014

 

MAO-AWEYS: DOCTOR CAUGHT INFGM FAKE SHEIKH STING

 

BIRMINGHAM, LONDONA doctor was caught offering to help in arranging a female genital mutilation(FGM) operation in a Sunday Times sting set up by ‘Fake Sheikh’ Mazher Mahmood,a tribunal heard today (Fri). Dr Ali Mao-Aweys, who has private clinics in Birmingham and London,was filmed apparently discussing the banned procedure on a camera hidden in anunknown female investigator’s handbag in April 2012. The reporter posed as a patient, ‘Omena’, and told the medic she wanted her 10 and 13-year-old niecescircumcised during a visit from Ghana.Mao-Aweys is allegedly heard offering advice, giving her the phone number ofanother Birmingham doctor who could perform theoperation and suggesting it would be safer to go to Africa because of the stiffpenalties in the UK.The doctor, whose first language is German, denies the charges and is expected to tell the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service he thought he was discussing a ‘reversal’ procedure to open up the vagina on a girl who had already undergone FGM.

………………………………………………………………………………..

 

I think the case belongs in this thread because of the recorded evidence adduced, obviously.

 

Of particular legal interest to me is the apparent attempt by the defence to block consideration of such evidence, or otherwise the continuance of the matter, on the grounds of 'entrapment'.Typically, the GMC once tried to agree with this notion and refused to consider such recordings - but the High Court told it to grow up and get real, last decade on exactly this point.

 

The hearing continues.

[nolegion]

A paragraph in commentary on the above ongoing case, printed in the BMJ today, reads:-

 

The [MPTS] panel said that in a video recording he appeared “to engage fullyin a conversation about FGM [female genital mutilation], Ms A’s two female nieces, medication, and travel to Africa.”There was “no evidence of any undue coercion having been applied."

 

(I can't provide a 'proper', full link because the article is behind a paywall, but for reference sake: http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3363)

 

I don't get it. What if considerable 'coercion' had been 'applied' to this man by the (female)journalist involved in the 'sting'? Would that make any acquiescence or proposed assistance of the nature alleged excusable? Or non-justiciable?

 

( Mmm..."female nieces"! As opposed to...?)

[nolegion]

I am very glad to note that there is now yet one more omni-accessible thread devoted to recording by patients. It is in another of the BMJ's 'communities', and from it comes this clear and cogent account:-:

 

" From personal experience, my 27 year old wife had a brain tumour and the Neuro Oncologist was going to explain all the treatment options and prognosis and so on. I asked politely if I could record the conversation (just sound) so we could listen again at home afterwards to make sure we were able to take it all in. He refused in a less than polite way. The news was terrible and after the words "palliative radiotherapy" we heard nothing else that was said. I tried to take notes but my brain was numb.

 

Over the next few months, the consultant kept saying that things had been discussed in this particular meeting but we had no recollection of it.

 

I am not saying he was lying. All I am saying is that consultants should be aware of how patients interpret what they say and how a recording can help clarify things. If a consultant tells a cancer patient the treatment is going well, the patient might think the treatment is killing the tumours, rather than keeping growth at bay. If there is no record of the exact conversation, this error in communication can have devastating conequences later.

 

The arrogant refusal of consultants to let patients record conversations shows a lack of patient-centred care. The first thought should not be: they might use it against me. It should be: It might help the patient to understand me better so we can come to a more collaborative treatment. "

 

http://doc2doc.bmj.com/forums/off-duty_news-media_should-patients-right-record-consultations ( post # 10, there)

[nolegion]

"May 22, 2014

 

MAO-AWEYS: [ ]... DOC STORMS OUT AFTER LEGAL CHALLENGES FAIL

 

MANCHESTER A doctor accused of offering to help to arrange a female genital mutilation (FGM) operation walked out of his hearing after a string of failed legal challenges to halt proceedings. Dr Ali Mao-Aweys claimed he no longer had the funds to pay lawyers or an interpreter after shelling out nearly £250,000 in legal fees to fight charges after he was targeted in a Sunday Times sting set up by 'Fake Sheikh' Mazher Mahmood in April 2012. The GP, who has private clinics in Birmingham and London,was filmed apparently discussing the barbaric procedure on a camera hidden in an unknown female investigator's handbag. The reporter posed as a patient,'Omena', and told the medic she wanted her 10 and 13-year-old nieces circumcised during a visit from Ghana."

 

( From a search of: http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/)

 

Quite apart from the other grave issues, why should a doctor registered to practise in England need an interpreter when appearing before an English-speaking disciplinary tribunal?

[nolegion]

The author at the USA site linked below (concerned with diabetes) writes on our subject sitting on the fence, with some inconsistency, and leaning towards the wrong conclusions (in my opinion), e.g.:-

 

"I don't blame you for not saying anything because of fear of retaliation."

 

BUT

 

"My answer is when in doubt – don't record."

 

Don’t' be daft. Don't be in doubt. Always record.

 

Still, I include the link here mostly because I like to see people providing due acknowledgement of their sources - particularly when, as in this case, express reference is made to CAG.

 

See:-

 

http://bobsdiabetes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/would-you-record-your-doctor-appointment.html

[nolegion]

Even byVictor-Meldrew standards, my last post seems unduly tetchy to me on a re-read, and I repent. Truly, I believe one should be glad if people are 'spreading the word' even if in a somewhat diffident fashion - and the USA has some genuine uncertainties of law in a minority of States. I wish the author well.

 

Which is more than I can say for this lot:-

………………………………………………………………………………………

 

California Association of Neurological Surgeons Volume 39 Number3 March 2012

 

[page 2 -- although the the bold+underline emphases are entirely supplied by me]:-

 

" Tidbits from the Editors

 

When the patient/family wants to record the office visit

 

The American Medical News had an interesting article about patients recording doctor visits in their March 12th [ 2012] issue. The author, AMA staff reporter Alicia Gallegos, points out that such arecording can be introduced as evidence in a malpractice trial if the patientcan prove to the judge’s satisfaction that the recording has not been manipulated such as to not include parts of the conversation that might not support the patient’s allegation. In some states a patient can record the visit without the doc’s knowledge but in Californiathe doctor has to give permission if the visit qualifies as a private matter which it certainly should. One might guess that your malpractice carrier would prefer you don’t allow any recordings and clearly post such policy in thewaiting room to for[e]stall even having to discuss the issue.

 

On the other hand, some feel that allowing a recording helps the patient remember what you have recommended, particularly if you are seeing an unaccompanied senior patient. Carolyn J. Oliver, MD, from a patient advocatefoundation, feels that patients forget between 30-70% of what you tell them within minutes of leaving your office and allowing a recording leads toincreased understanding of and compliance with your recommendations. Each neurosurgeon needs to make his/her own decision on this matter but this writer had a fairly simple policy of allowing recording of the discussion with the patient after taking the history, doing the exam and viewing the diagnostic studies, if any. If you allow such a recording, you must be particularly thorough in your discussion of pros and cons and especially therisks of following your advice and the pros and cons and especially the risksof not following your advice.

 

Surgeons that practice what might be called giving pre[-]emptive opinions, meaning walking into the examination room after viewinga scan and with little or no history taking or examination open with “You need surgery” or some similar statement (and after doing a few thousand 2nd surgical opinions this writer can attest tothe not rare existence of such docs) such surgeons should never allow recording since if things turn out badly, such a recording will tend to document a failure to allow the patient to make an informed decision. "

 

How enlightening.

 

(I extracted the text online, of course, but not a good link. Key words + search engine will soon find this unique result, though.)

[Sali]

FGM is a medieval and barbaric practice that has long been a problem in this country and, I suspect, not confronted by the authorities sooner ( I think this is the first court case) for fear of offending cultural sensitivities.

 

Dr Mao-Aweys' laywers will use any ruse to get him off the charge. Points of law so often triumph over reason, right and commonsense. The legal profession has never been troubled by a conscience.

 

And, yes, it irked me that this man insisted on an interpreter. I guess they don't want to give him any grounds for appeal.

 

Once free (if he's ever convicted) he may insist Google (after the European Court's test case) delete all links to his murky past. Clean sheet.

 

The man who writes about his wife's brain tumour diagnosis suggests that the consultant's refusal to allow audio-recording "shows a lack of patient-centred care." I think it shows the medic's fear - of his own lack of ability being exposed, of the hospital management not supporting him or of the patient prosecuting him.

 

On a different subject, did you hear of the surgeon using Google glasses to transmit live recordings of surgery? Presumably they get permission from the patient before knocking him out. Quite a new kind of home movie.

[nolegion]

"May 30, 2014

MAO-AWEYS: DOCTOR STRUCK OFF FOR FGM OFFER

 

BIRMINGHAM/HARINGEY A disgraced doctor who was secretly filmed offering to assist in arranging the female genital mutilation (FGM) of two children was struck off today (Fri).

 

Dr Ali Mao-Aweys was snared in a Sunday Times sting masterminded by 'Fake Sheikh'Mazher Mahmood in April 2012 to catch doctors willing to perform the outlawed operations.

 

The Somalian national, who has private clinics in Birmingham and Haringey, north London, was recorded discussing the barbaric practice with an unknown female investigator on a camera hidden in her handbag.

 

Mao-Aweys told the reporter he could help and gave her advice along with the phone number of another Birmingham doctor who could perform the procedure after she posed as a patient who wanted her 10 and 13-year-old nieces circumcised."

 

(from;http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/)

 

So that's the GMC's position. Now, perhaps the police\Crown Prosecution Service would like to reconsider their earlier decision not to prosecute.

 

(This may just be one of the instances where the GMC provides access to the full case report more promptly than usual. I will try to remember to post a link to it when it becomes available.)

 

……………………………………………………………………………………

 

 

On that 'different subject', I am trying to keep up with the increasing number of stories about Google "Glass" being posted online (nearly all, so far, USA-based). It may take a while before it's over here and at a price most patients could afford – but sooner or later…

 

I would be glad if contributors posted any interesting snippets about its use, in this thread. Anybody actually used it, themselves?

 

It seems like a gadget that could be quite fun to play with, in the right circumstances, but what I fear is that, in due course, it might provoke a 'privacy backlash', and that, illogically and duplicitously, the medics might then try to 'ban' audio-recording on the strength of that feeling. We shall see. Perhaps I tilt at windmills.

[nolegion]

Just for those who may not be familiar with the GMC's track-record as regards covertly recorded evidence, had it been left to its own devices last decade, that august protector of patients and medical standards would not have allowed the Mao-Aways case to proceed at all.

 

When journalists secretly taped a number of dodgy appointments with GPs, it tried to 'stay' the hearings (i.e., in the instances concerned, for ever prevent the matters proceeding to a verdict), on the basis that it would be 'entrapment', abuse of process, and unfair to the doctors concerned.

 

It took a test-case appeal to the High Court by a health quango to sort that out. Here's a handy summary:-

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1647341/

 

In the event, the GMC fitness to practise panel finally ruled on the test-case GP in April 2007 (more than 4 years after the recordings were first taken) – and, giving every appearance of pure pique at having had its backside kicked, dished out a risible penalty: one month's suspension from practice.

 

( http://webcache.gmc-uk.org/minutesfiles/3226.HTML)

 

Since then, of course, a number of cases have been heard at the GMC involving covertly recorded evidence, but it's worth remembering the GMC's original stance, I think, particularly when something as dark and stark as FGM is involved.

[nolegion]

Good to see that the MDU, this month, has again published a version of Dr Philip Zack's advice on our subject online. It appears in their 'Good Practice section' and is a slightly amended and abbreviated version of the article which first appeared towards the end of last year.

 

For ease of reference:-

 

June 2014:-

http://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/journals/good-practice-june-2014/patients-recording-consultations

 

November 2013:-

http://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/latest-updates-and-advice/what-should-you-do-if-a-patient-wants-to-record-a-consultation

 

 

This, I trust, indicates that, 6 months on, the largest medical insurer in England and Wales is not at all inclined to retreat from the sensible position Dr Zack took in the earlier publication, despite all or anyof the bone-headed huff & puff which e.g. (after Glyn Elwyn and patientgate had raised the profile of the issue at the BMJ, on March 11, this year), was appended to the original commentary. Good for Dr Z.

………………………………………………

 

Ali Mao-Aweys. The decision to 'strike off' (or, in GMC quasi-Dalek parlance, 'erase') this GP was made last Friday, and there have been many and various reports of, and quotations from, that announced decision published by those actually attending the proceedings (and, indirectly, the likes of me, come to that).

 

Notwithstanding intense public interest, however, there is still no full, official case report published online. Even when the GMC gets it right, it gets it wrong.

[nolegion]

Many thanks to the viewer who has sent me a link to a further MDU article which refers both to 'Google Glass' – as mentioned by Sali (28thMay, above) - and to recording by patients.

 

It was first published in print last March apparently, and,while attributed to one Leo Briggs, it obviously owes a good deal to Dr Zack's earlier commentary, already linked here several times over.

 

Not a lot that's new, therefore, but good to see all the same:-

 

http://www.themdu.com/sitecore/content/corporate/ddu/home/guidance-and-advice/journals/march-2014/the-law-and-ethics-of-recording-in-dental-surgeries

 

More grist to their elbows. The article ticks a lot ofboxes.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Having said which, there is a matter of legal detail I have been thinking of addressing for some while, and now is as good a time as any. (Dry as dust.)

 

The article linked above says:-

 

" In fact, there is no legal barrier to your patients recording their time in the dental chair as they are only processingt heir own personal information. Section 36 of the Data Protection Act 1998states: 'Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of thati ndividual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of PartsII and III'. "

 

and, in so saying, substantially repeats text in similar MDU articles, noted in this thread before. Trouble is, it's not quite accurate.

 

The Data Protection Act 1998 defines 'data' as various types of information, and defines 'personal data' very broadly:-

 

“personal data” means data which relate to a living individual who can be identified

 

(a ) from those data, or

 

(b ) from those data and otherinformation which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into thepossession of, the data controller,

 

and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller orany other person in respect of the individual;"

 

(Ex Section 1. DPA)

 

The upshot of this is that a patient's recording of a consultation with a doctor (which might, for instance, include the patient calling the doctor by name) could indeed, in some circumstances, constitute 'personal data' as regards the doctor consulted, for the purposes of the Act.

 

That doesn't matter. The, very important, Section 36 exemption still applies, because it's purposive.

 

Have another look at the wording of the statute correctly quoted by Briggs above. It relates to "personal data processed by an individual for the purposes of that individual's personal …etc." affairs. The exemption is not aimed at an individual processing their own 'personal data', but at an individual processing the personal data of others.

 

The classic illustration of this would be the Xmas card spreadsheet, which some maintain.These can include all sorts of personal details about others. No breach of the DPA is involved because the info is collated and processed by an' individual' (not e.g. a company, or business) for the purposes of "that individual's personal, family or household affairs(including recreational purposes)".

 

I would like to stress that, legal quiddities aside, it is, in my view, exactly the right approach, and emphasis, to talk about the patient's own personal information. Medics really do need to recognise that the focus of a consultation is indeed their patients not their own overweening egos, and contributors here may remember that when the Information Commissioner, no less, came to lecture at a hospital on our subject a couple of years ago, it was exactly the fact that it was information personal to patients – their information - that was highlighted.

 

I make the careful legal distinction now because I would rather the sensible likes of Zack, Briggs and co were not wrong-footed by the any technical arguments of recalcitrant medical practitioners at some later stage. And please note this has been commentary about the DPA, not about the admissibility of evidence, where a leading case (Amwell v Dogherty) identified that covert recording in person was just like note-taking.

 

If you have been, thanks for listening.

[Sali]

I am baffled why Ali Mao-Aweys hasn't faced criminal charges. What excuse do the CPS offer? Not in the public interest? Surely there is evidence enough.

 

There really needs to be a strong message (jail term) sent out that assisting (or performing) FGM will not be tolerated in this country.

 

I maybe wrong but I don't see the Google glass thing catching on in our every day lives in their current form. However, it's early days. Personally I don't think they are discreet enough at the moment.

 

When does 'for the purposes of that individual's personal, family and household affairs' cease to apply? Could my Google glass capture video in say a ward environment (monitoring my interaction with medics) without asking permission of those around me, if I had no intention of making it public? And if I did use the footage in a court of law, could I not just fuzzy-out the faces of the people not concerned in the event, or would the video just not be admissible as evidence?

 

And what would be police reaction to Google glass? Seemingly they can record via body cams (I read this was to restore public trust) without requesting permission (the little red light on their lapel flashes whilst in record mode), but how would they like members of the public turning the tables?

 

I'm currently pondering whether to buy a dash cam.

[nolegion]

Many thanks for that last post, Sali. Much food for thought - and some questions to which I certainly do not know the full answers.

 

Starting with Dr Ali Mao-Aweys.

 

He was arrested over two years ago following an 'undercover' operation involving a Sunday Times journalist.

 

This is how another newspaper reported the result:-

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/sep/21/sundaytimes-mazher-mahmood

 

Meanwhile, the (GMC's) 'Medical Practitioners' Tribunal Service' still has not put the case report on line. It indicates that it may be awaiting the expiry of a 28-day period during which Mao-Aweys can appeal (after its judgment on 30 May, last). Why? It has most certainly reported other cases more promptly.

 

Doesn't stop the doctor concerned starting his own protest site, though:-

 

http://www.dralimaoaweys.com/Pages/default.aspx

 

If the police\CPS\GMC wanted to dilute what should indeed be a 'strong message', so far you could scarcely organise a weaker presentation of the facts apparently exposed.

[nolegion]

A version of the MPTS hearing decision re Mao-Aweys is now available, and I attach a copy below.

 

The most important part of the matter in general is, of course, the right message about a barbaric practice, and the removal of the doctor concerned as a potential threat to women and children, at least in this country.

 

For the specifics of this thread's topic, however, it is particularly useful to see that the determined attempt by the doctor's defence to halt the proceedings on the grounds of 'entrapment', failed both at the MPTS level, and in the High Court - to which, one learns, an 'emergency' procedural appeal was made while the MPTS hearing was still in progress.

…………………………………

 

I now want to get back to Sali's question of 6th June above, about s.36 the DPA, which is also, in my view, important to our topic:-

 

"When does 'for the purposes of that individual's personal, family and household affairs' cease to apply? "

 

Next post, all being well..

[nolegion]

I should have said. You can't open an attachment to a post unless you are logged in. If for any strange reason viewers here don't want to sign up ( - it's entirely free and quick and easy - ) to our kind hosts at CAG…

 

Then,

 

1) go to the GMC website (not the MPTS one which still doesn't include the case report), here:--

 

http://www.gmc-uk.org/

 

2) use the 'check a doctor's registration' dialogue box to get outline details;

 

3) this will tell you that Mao-Aweys has been 'erased' –subject to an appeal period;

 

4) under that click the one word 'details'

[nolegion]

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but people may be puzzled as to why a brief exchange - yesterday (Friday) - with a friendly journalist suddenly disappeared.

 

It may be because under site rules someone posting as representing a business or organisation needs the permission of site admin first, and perhaps that had not been sorted out? Authentication, maybe?

 

Could be wrong about the detail - but in any event, I hope it can soon be sorted out. I liked the idea that a contributor\viewer or two here might get a chance to chat on air on our topic, in company with Prof. (patientgate) Elwyn.