Professor Peter Rubin GMC President
Dr Sarah Myhill MB BS, Upper Weston, Llangunllo, Knighton, Powys, Wales, UK LD7 1SL
- May 5th 2010
|Professor Peter Rubin|
|General Medical Council|
|350 Euston Road|
|London NW1 3JN|
Dear Professor Rubin,
Re: IOP Hearing of Dr Sarah Myhill April 29th 2010
I am writing to ask that you overturn the rulings of an IOP Panel which heard my case last week on the following grounds:
1. specific procedures in my letter to Mr Scott Geddes which is attached hereto. I refer you to the rules under which the IOP was carried out, to the notice I was given for this IOP, how patient notes were taken illegally (i.e. without patient knowledge or permission), how the patient’s right to anonymity has been seriously compromised by GMC prosecutor Mr Summers and how the IOP were not fully apprised of my past history with the GMC. Finally, the GMC failed to observe its own rules with respect to vexatious complainants (7 August 2009 rule 4 (3) (c) ). This is illustrated by the tone of the website posting in which the complainant identified himself to the world and which I read out at my Hearing: “I reproduce below, verbatim, online quotes from the ‘anonymous’ complainant. This was posted on Thursday April 15th at 2.20 a.m.:
- “OK, so I finally bit the bullet and complained (anonymously for reasons that will become clear) to the GMC about uber-quack, Dr Sarah Myhill and to my surprise they have decided to launch a Fitness to Practise investigation. Her response has been quite interesting so I thought I would share it with the Badscience community. It will be interesting to see how the GMC proceed as I believe she has been in the same situation on numerous occasions in the past with similar public campaigns resulting in the GMC dropping charges for undisclosed reasons. She has a (public) Interim Order Panel (IOP) hearing on 29th April at which she could have her license to practise suspended for 18 months.
- Those who live in glass houses should masturbate in the basement …”
At a further post he states:
- “I actually find this quite funny as my initial contact with the GMC was just a speculative email to the general enquiries email asking whether it would actually be worth submitting another complaint given the failure of the previous 6 efforts. This was written with some haste during a coffee break and hence contained a few typos. Amusingly, after submitting my full complaint the GMC decided to use this email to front the complaint to Myhill *sigh*.”
These posts are accompanied by a photograph which I presume to be of the complainant himself. It pictures him underwater drinking a can of Coca-Cola.
2. The restrictions placed on my practice by the GMC are illogical. As a result of my recommending the use of B12 injections to a general practitioner (none were given to the patient), all my rights to prescribe all medications listed in British National Formulary have been lifted. Consequentially I am unable to practise effectively as a doctor and unable to earn a living as a qualified doctor.
3. Consistency. I note that Dr Jane Barton was investigated over 12 years for the deaths of 95 patients in her care, of which 5 were clearly shown to be due to morphine overdose. She had a GMC Hearing on 29th January 2010. She lost her right to prescribe opiates for the next 3 years, whilst all other drug prescribing was permitted. The decision to lift all my prescribing rights on the basis of my recommending a B12 injection is inconsistent with the Barton case. As noted above a result of this I am now unable to practise effectively as a doctor and unable to earn a living as a qualified doctor.
4. Timing. The GMC did not allow me sufficient time to prepare my defence nor brief my representative. Initially I was given one full working day’s notice of an IOP. This was then extended by 13 working days on appeal. Furthermore the expert witness report was only sent to me three days before my hearing. Given the GMC had allowed themselves 10 months to investigate the B12 complaint and 14 weeks to investigate the website complaint, the time allowed afforded to me was unfair. At the very least, the time given to me to peruse the Expert Witness report would appear to be against the spirit of GMC rules which allow 7 days’ notice. Furthermore the expert witness report did not arrive until after the date of the first arranged IOP, suggesting his opinion was irrelevant to both to the original GMC Hearing as planned and by inference to preconceived ideas as to the outcome of my case.
5. Expert witness report. My expertise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial disorders was dismissed by the expert witness Professor Bouloux who is an endocrinologist with, by his own admission, no expertise in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial disorders. I have a right to be judged by my peers and this right was not observed.
As a result of this IOP decision the well being of my patients has been seriously damaged. It is incumbent on you to put this right and act in my and my patients Best Interest as a matter of urgency.Yours sincerely
Enclosed copy letter to Scott Geddes May 5th 2010, copy letter to Julian Graves
Cc: Niall Dickson, Chief Executive GMC.