article in the Telegraph
"Dr Martin Quinn, a consultant gynaecologist, was found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council (GMC) which ruled he should not have carried out hysterectomies on both women.
He was suspended from working for six months but will be allowed to practise after that time.
One of the women involved said that she was "bewildered" that a consultant who had "terrified" her into believing that radical surgery was her only option would still be allowed to work in the NHS.
The GMC found that Dr Quinn had failed to act in the best interests of both women.
The panel found him guilty of misconduct and that his fitness to practise was impaired.
Dr George Lodge, chairman of the panel, told Dr Quinn that his actions represented "misconduct so serious as to call into question whether you should continue as a registered doctor, either with restrictions on registration or at all."
He added that the panel was concerned that he had allowed his research interests to "intrude unacceptably" into his care of patients.
But the panel suspended Dr Quinn for six months, saying they were satisfied there was no evidence of a general lack of competence and no previous evidence of misconduct."
So the panel "were satisfied there was no evidence of a general lack of competence"! - But competence was not the point at issue here! - At issue was this surgeon's probity - his honesty - his ethical standards - his morality. The question is not, "Did he do these operations competently?" - but "Should he have done these operations at all?" - I myself have not the slightest doubt that this doctor should be deregistered because of what he has done to those women by deliberately deceiving them into unnecessary hysterectomies they did not want, did not need, and which caused them all the risks and pain and distress of major surgery. - I'd be strongly inclined to deregister the GMC panel that came to this indefensible decision too...
Actually I further consider that in doing this major surgery on the women, by dint of giving them false information, that this is a crime - grievous bodily harm, perhaps? - and should be judged in a Court of Law. - What do you think?
What a useless shower is the GMC! - All the expensive shower has ever done is protect negligent doctors. They do not protect the innocent public/patients/victims, although the pretence is that protecting the public is why they exist and it is public money that pays for the GMC. - The GMC has never been of any use to patients. It should have been scrapped decades ago, and even more urgently now. - A waste of money, a waste of time (pretending to damaged patients that their concerns will be properly dealt with when it will all really just be a waste of time), a mockery of justice!