We have a s2 with separate medical reccs signed on the same day with identical, ‘cut and paste’ reasons.
This would appear to be invalid?
1 Like
Interesting question. I’m trying to think how it would be materially different to a joint recommendation.
If it’s from two different and ‘separate’ medical doctors, then it’s a fudge? And if it is, would the General Medical Council be interested? Ooooo.. talk of the GMC possibly getting involved is a no no. The culture is to band together. Somebody tell me I’m wrong.
It is not materially different to a joint recc. but has not been entered on a joint recc form. Interestingly the patient told us before we saw s pps that the sectioning process ‘took 90 seconds’.
Do you think GMC would be interested?
If that’s addressed to me, then I have to say that I cannot know exactly what the GMC would be interested in.
The GMC requires all registered medical doctors (with or without a licence to practice) to work soundly within frameworks of the law, even if illegality is imposed on them [Caution: you won’t find those words exactly in the text of any GMC document.]
The GMC can prevail over any irregularities of ‘conduct’ within Mental Health Law or any other category of law. In JB v Elysium Healthcare 2025, the GMC would have been hard-pressed to take action against a dead RC.
The GMC is not a regulatory body that goes fishing for wrong doing among doctors, except perhaps in high profile situations like Mid-Staffordshire debacle of many years ago.
Normally the GMC waits for a matter to land in their lap by way of ‘complaints’. This means - mathematically - the GMC is uninterested in most wrong doing by doctors simply because they won’t know about it.
Doctors have been struck off or suspended for things like major breaches of integrity, which usually comes down to civil dishonesty and criminal of dishonesty. But again, only when something of the sorts is thrown in their lap.
Nobody - meaning very few people - report doctors to the GMC for significant breaches of 30-standards the GMC has pushed into the public domain.
If you’re a member of the general public you may think, “Surely the GMC would be interested if patients were being illegally cared for or managed!” (e.g. treatment under common law post expiry of S136 limits, neglected for circa 2 years in detention without appropriate treatment, relapses caused by botched drug holidays that had no foundations for such, wrongful diagnosis, doctors rescinding other doctor’s med recs - and a much longer list). But most members of the general public don’t know what’s what. They’ll go (just like doctors), "I’m not a lawyer.. or “...I’m not a doctor.” Furthermore I discovered about 2 years ago at a talk I gave to a bunch of lay people at a Charity, that they were totally unaware of the GMC or their regulation of doctors [Caution: they were not mentally disabled or otherwise intellectually dim].
90 secs would be a concern. That’s taking the 5th principle a bit far! 
1 Like
Well-we have raised it as an issue-will keep you posted.
1 Like
With the Trust, not the GMC
1 Like
Good plan. The GMC returns most things to Trusts (or other health organisations) to investigate first. Then in one pathway they may decide if it needs to concern them further.
I’m not getting involved in the specifics of the issue you raised as this is in the public domain.
Obviously, I’m preoccupied with what the GMC actually does or does not do. In many instances findable on google, they are hot on ‘dishonesty’ (criminal and civil aspects), but only when they find out. Like anybody else, they cannot take action on something they don’t know about.
IMHO even cutting and pasting in joint med recs is not on - but then again I am NOBODY of any national authority or importance, so ignore my views. Reputational clout (aka authority) is what matters most in the new ‘Social Media’ mindset world. Logic is dead, I’ve been coming to painfully realise.
The trust accepted the section was unlawful. We will consider whether he has a claim for unlawful detention.
Only a court can determine whether a section is unlawful.
Good. Nothing prevents any organisation from conceding that their actions were unlawful and settling before the reaching the steps of a court! Happens ‘all the time’ - think CNST where there is a lovely piggy bank of over £50 Billion waiting to pay out. No court required.