Most sensible people would think that, when a regulator faces a serious legal claim about the public interest in robust regulation of new professions whose work inevitably involves risks to patients, the regulator would be willing to discuss it and try and find a compromise.
Not the GMC.
The GMC’s lawyers have written to us to say they will not have any discussions in an independent mediation process about our case. Their attitude is ‘put up or shut up’- in other words we should give up our fight for proper regulation and patient safety or take it to court. .
Yet at the heart of our case is a very simple question that could be answered very quickly – including in the mediation process the GMC will not agree to.
In their email they wrote:-
We recognise the importance of parties attempting alternative dispute resolution (‘ADR’) [mediation], where appropriate, before resorting to litigation. However, we do not consider that this would be an appropriate case for ADR, whether in the form you propose or any other form. That is because the remedy you are seeking, in the litigation and presumably in the ADR too, is for the GMC to do something it considers that it should not do – i.e. create guidance on safe and effective practice for Anaesthesia Associates (’AAs’) and Physician Associates (’PAs’). The GMC is not the appropriate body to create such guidance. The medical royal colleges and faculties, rather than the GMC, are the specialist experts in terms of clinical practice in their fields.
We accept the GMC is not the only body that should have something to say about what Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates can and cannot do. The Royal Colleges have some relevant expertise. But as a regulator, the GMC must draw red lines on the limits of both roles because they are fundamentally different from doctors. Worse still, the current murky state of affairs is that Trusts are able to, and do, brazenly breach existing College guidelines, presumably in an attempt to cut corners and lower standards by using Associates without direct supervision.
The response to our request for mediation is disappointing. It doesn’t say that the GMC legally cannot take the steps we have asked for; it is that they are choosing not to. Their decision could have been influenced by the Department of Health. We have written back to ask whose decision this was. We are expecting a full result to this and our other questions by the end of this week.
“We don’t want to mediate” isn’t really much of a reason not to. And it is not what the Courts expect. Case law suggests that “No defence, however strong, by itself justifies a failure to engage in any kind of alternative dispute resolution. Experience has shown that disputes may often be resolved in a way satisfactory to all parties, including parties who find themselves able to resolve claims against them which they consider to be well founded.”
The refusal to mediate is having the clear effect of ramping up costs. We need to raise the first £200k as quickly as we can. If you haven’t yet given then please make a donation at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-misleading-patients/ If you already have then we thank you, and kindly request that you use whatever influence you have on social media and personal conversation to raise the profile of our case. Ensuring that Associates are properly supervised and regulated is in all of our interests.