[back] Donegan Fitness to practice hearing 2007
"GP cleared of misconduct over MMR evidence (August 25, 2007)
"A doctor accused of misleading a court over the risks of MMR and other vaccines
was today cleared by medical watchdogs of serious professional misconduct. Jayne
Donegan, a GP in Herne Hill, south London, "convinced herself" of the dangers of
vaccines, leading her to give false evidence, the General Medical Council heard.
She was accused of quoting selectively from medical reports and omitting
information that did not support her views. But after a three-week hearing Dr
Donegan was cleared of failing in her duty of impartiality by deliberately
giving biased expert witness testimony."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2155992,00.html
Inevitably, the impression given is that Jayne was let off in some way, but
this is not how this kind of GMC hearing functions. The reality is that the GMC
went on an elaborate fishing expedition against her but the fact was that in
cruelly unfavourable circumstances, with little time and no experience as an
expert witness, she had performed an all but faultless job. She knew the
studies, and exactly where they limits lay - and that their data often did not
support their conclusions . She was also careful to present evidence favourable
to vaccine where she saw it. I do not think the issue of deliberately misleading
a court ever arose: the GMC would not have let her off if there had been any
evidence either of incompetence, or of misleading the court unwittingly. Jayne
was cleared because she gave thoroughly capable and competent evidence all
along. This is a shameful saga.
United Kingdom
233
Posts
Posted - 08/26/2007 :
14:41:10
|
However, it
is pleasant to record that GMC panel were not mealy mouthed in clearing
Jayne, stating: "The panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and the litigants." "The panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased." "Accordingly the panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct." This exhaustive review has completely failed to substantiate Mr Justice Sedley's allegation that Jayne's evidence was "junk science". http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1299268,00.html Out of 63 specific criticisms made by the prosecution expert, David Elliman, the panel upheld only two marginal points. |