RULING: "Fitness to practice panel; Determination on sanction; Dr. Mohmed Saeed Sulema Patel."
GIST: "The Panel has determined, that for the reasons detailed, suspending your registration for a further period would not be sufficient in the public interest. Therefore, the Panel has deemed the only appropriate sanction to be one of erasure. It has reached this decision on two separate bases. First, is the harm done to public confidence in the profession through the failures in the post mortem examinations of Miss B, Baby C, Mrs D, Miss E and Mr Tomlinson. These failures also illustrate the potential harm to what Dr Fegan-Earl described as the ‘end users’ of the coronial system, for example, a potential failure to detect clandestine homicides in either section 19 or section 20 post mortem examinations. The Panel is of the view that these matters alone take it beyond the question of suspension and therefore to erasure. Second, the Panel then considered whether your dishonesty at a previous Fitness to Practise Panel and in the present case concerning Mr Tomlinson, of themselves, constituted grounds for erasure and the Panel determined that it did so. Dishonesty destroys the public's trust in the individual doctor and undermines both public confidence in the profession, and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Your dishonesty confirm's the Panel’s finding at the impairment stage that your integrity cannot be relied upon."
The entire General Medical Council ruling can be found through:
http://www.mpts-uk.org/decisions/data/2247.asp
--------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dr. Freddy Patel, a pathologist, received the ultimate sanction for professional misconduct - erasure from his profession - in the United Kingdom Dr. Charles Smith, a pathologist, received the ultimate sanction - removal from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario - in Canada. In Smith's case, the panel ruled, in part: "Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation. From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle." The entire ruling relating to Smith can be found at the following link to a post on this Blog entitled, "Requiem for a flawed pathologist," which I published on March 26, 2011. A study of both readings reveals a number of striking comparisons between the two once esteemed men. However, one of the most disturbing comparisons in their cases, is that each was protected for years - at great harm to the public - by their governing bodies."
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2011/03/requiem-for-flawed-pathologist-ontario.html
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
-------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
GIST: "The Panel has determined, that for the reasons detailed, suspending your registration for a further period would not be sufficient in the public interest. Therefore, the Panel has deemed the only appropriate sanction to be one of erasure. It has reached this decision on two separate bases. First, is the harm done to public confidence in the profession through the failures in the post mortem examinations of Miss B, Baby C, Mrs D, Miss E and Mr Tomlinson. These failures also illustrate the potential harm to what Dr Fegan-Earl described as the ‘end users’ of the coronial system, for example, a potential failure to detect clandestine homicides in either section 19 or section 20 post mortem examinations. The Panel is of the view that these matters alone take it beyond the question of suspension and therefore to erasure. Second, the Panel then considered whether your dishonesty at a previous Fitness to Practise Panel and in the present case concerning Mr Tomlinson, of themselves, constituted grounds for erasure and the Panel determined that it did so. Dishonesty destroys the public's trust in the individual doctor and undermines both public confidence in the profession, and the need to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour. Your dishonesty confirm's the Panel’s finding at the impairment stage that your integrity cannot be relied upon."
The entire General Medical Council ruling can be found through:
http://www.mpts-uk.org/decisions/data/2247.asp
--------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Dr. Freddy Patel, a pathologist, received the ultimate sanction for professional misconduct - erasure from his profession - in the United Kingdom Dr. Charles Smith, a pathologist, received the ultimate sanction - removal from the register of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario - in Canada. In Smith's case, the panel ruled, in part: "Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation. From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle." The entire ruling relating to Smith can be found at the following link to a post on this Blog entitled, "Requiem for a flawed pathologist," which I published on March 26, 2011. A study of both readings reveals a number of striking comparisons between the two once esteemed men. However, one of the most disturbing comparisons in their cases, is that each was protected for years - at great harm to the public - by their governing bodies."
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2011/03/requiem-for-flawed-pathologist-ontario.html
Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
-------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
I am monitoring this case. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmithInformation on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
