This really is one of the more extraordinary things the GMC has come out with.
I doubt whether this will survive a courtroom challenge though.
I'm not a great fan of "Max Pemberton" (a doctor who writes under a pseudonym - he's too submissive for me) but he sums it up pretty well
See:
Max Pemberton: General Medical Council rules threaten doctors? free speech - Telegraph
Bear in mind the the GMC of today mostly consists of non-medical bureaucrat jobsworths whose principal aim is to neuter medical practitioners and "prevent another Shipman" (they won't).
They have clearly stated that their mandate is to protect the public from doctors and that any doctor is "fair game".
One of the saddest things for me is that we are being increasingly pushed to practice neither empirically based medicine or even "evidence based medicine" (which most of us have been practicing all along) but legally-driven medicine in which one's main criterion is not the benefit of the patient but the likelihood of being sued.
Pemberton again:
The fear of being sued is ruining modern medicine - Telegraph
At a recent ethics lecture (which I am obliged to attend in order to make sure that I have enought ethics points to continue practicing), I suggested to the visiting Professor that we were now not following ethics based ethics but legal based ethics, in which the driving force was no longer the philosophical concept of ethics but avoidance of the courtroom.
He was quite nonplussed but said that he hoped not!
Fundamentally, of course, you don't need religion to have morals.
If you can't determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.
By the way, I plan to resolutely ignore this nonsense and continue to post as Mac - if the UK GMC strike me off then it will merely save me a bit of money.
