Despite our earlier attempts at getting full disclosure from the GMC we remain frustrated that some key information on decision-making has not been presented to the court. 

Our lawyers have written to the GMC asking for the information we need to be revealed. You can read their letter in full here.

Missing information over scope of practice and supervision

There has been a flurry of publications from the GMC recently including the April 2025 ethical-hub document on supervision of PAs and an earlier document to guide employers. We have asked how these came to be written – the decision-making material that was used – and for information about the risk assessments carried out by the GMC of the impact of inadequate/insufficient supervision.

We have also asked for an explanation of why the April 25 guidance makes reference to policies from UMAPs (the union for associates) yet glosses over guidance from the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) and the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP). In particular, the RCoA’s proposals on supervision levels are ignored, as is the RCGP’s prohibition on PAs seeing undifferentiated patients. How was that decision reached?

This coincides with UMAPs threatening legal action against the RCGP and we have asked whether this made a difference, and we want to see any correspondence between UMAPs and the GMC that could shed light on this.

Missing information on consent

It remains obscure how, and when, the GMC reached the position that associates do not have to explicitly tell patients they “are not doctors”  – in contrast to the situation with medical students who are required to use this phrase.

And what the judge said

It is not just us and the Chestertons that have concerns about the GMC’s obfuscation. 

Mrs Justice Lambert recognised early in the hearing that more time was likely to be needed for the case. This is highly unusual, and suggests she intends to get right to the bottom of the GMC’s decision-making.

She compared the rapid publication of the GMC’s recent guidance and advice to a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. Her expectation is that everything the GMC decides is based on carefully-considered and documented decisions, especially following the BMA’s judicial review. 

Yet even now, mid-trial, faced with the overwhelming evidence of patient risk that stem from the differences between doctors and associates, the GMC has yet to put all of its cards on the table. People cannot yet see how it came to the conclusions that it did, and how it believes its approach can be justified. Mrs Justice Lambert has made it very clear that they need to provide further disclosure.

The ‘independent’ regulator

The GMC states on its website that because of the way it is funded – charging doctors a fee for registration – it is free of political influence and able to carry out its statutory duties independently.

It is, of course, in receipt of government funding for this legal case – whereas we are crowdfunded. 

We are now short of funds, since the court hearing has been extended to June 9th. 

A straw poll by one of our supporters revealed that over 80% of doctors are simply not aware this case is happening; so please talk about it in your workplace and help us to hit our financial targets. We have some posters you can display on suitable sites.

The  Medical Women’s Federation, BMA and the Doctors Association have already backed us. We hope other membership organisations will now follow suit. Their members will expect no less.

You can access all of these posters from our shared Google Drive. You should scale them to fit your paper size.