Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Medical Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2391 (Admin)
Dr Helen Webberley v General Medical Council
31 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 734 (Admin)
High Court
A doctor was suspended for not talking to a young transgender patient about fertility risks before starting treatment. The judge said the panel that suspended her didn't properly consider all the evidence, and it wasn't fair to make her go through another hearing. So the suspension was overturned.
Key Facts
- •Dr. Helen Webberley, a GP with a special interest in transgender medicine, was investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC) for her treatment of three transgender children.
- •The Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPT) found her guilty of failing to discuss the risks to Patient C's fertility before commencing GnRHa treatment.
- •The MPT suspended Dr. Webberley for two months.
- •Dr. Webberley appealed under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983.
- •The central issue was whether Dr. Webberley's discussions with Patient C's mother adequately substituted for a direct discussion with Patient C regarding fertility risks.
Legal Principles
The High Court exercises an appellate, not review, function in appeals under section 40 of the Medical Act 1983. The appeal is a rehearing, allowing substitution of the court's decision for the MPT's.
Sastry and Okpara v GMC [2021] EWCA Civ 623
Serious professional misconduct requires an act or omission falling short of proper conduct, linked to the profession of medicine, and of serious nature. Mere negligence is insufficient, but serious negligence may suffice.
Roylance v GMC (No 2) [1999] UKPC 16; Calhaem v GMC [2007] EWHC 2606 (Admin)
Impairment of fitness to practice requires consideration of misconduct in light of all relevant factors, including the need to protect patients and maintain public confidence. Not all misconduct results in impaired fitness.
Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 (Admin)
A parent's consent cannot overrule a Gillick-competent child's decision regarding treatment; however, parental consent remains relevant where the child and parent agree.
AB v CD & Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The MPT's determination on misconduct was flawed due to unclear reasoning, omission of key evidence (emails from the administrative assistant), and an incorrect interpretation of the consent form. While the judge acknowledged the doctor's omission to discuss fertility risks directly with Patient C, the judge found the MPT's analysis inadequate to support a finding of serious misconduct.