GMC 'right' to clear doctor over TV leak

A decision by the General Medical Council to clear a consultant of serious professional misconduct for leaking information to the media has been backed by the High Court.

A judge in London on Thursday upheld a ruling on Thursday that Dr Keith Prowse was justified in disclosing a patients' confidential documents.

He leaked the documents to Channel 4 News in order to counter allegations that a woman's signature had been forged on a form consenting to the inclusion of her two premature babies in ventilator research trials at North Staffordshire Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent.

The babies were born in February and December 1992.

Authorised disclosure

One of them died and the other was left severely disabled.

Respiratory consultant Dr Prowse authorised the disclosure of the forms to Channel 4 News after Mrs Henshall and her husband Carl approached the station with claims that the hospital used their two daughters in the trials without permission.

The controversial CNEP ventilator

Examination of the documents, the consent form and other forms signed by Mrs Henshall, showed that the signature was genuine.

Mrs Henshall, from Clayton, Stoke, complained to the General Medical Council about the leak of confidential documents.

But in May this year, the GMC committee held that, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, Dr Prowse had disclosed the documents in the best interests of patients.

The committee said the allegations of forgery against doctors in the paediatric department would have seriously undermined the trust of parents and seriously damaged standards of medical care.

Memory lapse

Parents would have been reluctant to accept the advice of doctors they believed to be guilty of forgery.

The allegation of forgery was "entirely false", the committee said.

Lawyers acting for Mrs Henshall complained that the finding implied that Mrs Henshall had lied.

They said it "coloured" the committee's ruling to the extent that the whole decision should be overturned.

But on Thursday, Mr Justice Keith refused Mrs Henshall permission to challenge the decision.

He held that the finding did not reflect on Mrs Henshall's honesty or credibility.

The committee, which had heard evidence that she might have suffered from a memory lapse because she signed under the after-effects of anaesthetic, was simply saying that she had indeed signed the consent form.

The judge also rejected a plea that the reference to the falsity of the forgery claim should be deleted from the record of the committee's decision because it could prejudice a medical negligence damages claim being brought against the hospital on behalf of her disabled child.

Mr Justice Keith said the forgery issue had no bearing on the pending damages claim, which concerned the quality of the research and care provided by the hospital.