Earlier this year, the General Medical Council (GMC) reprimanded Dr Richard Scott – a GP at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate – for discussing his Christian faith with one of his patients.
Peter Saunders, Chief Executive of Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) writes on this case in his Summer editorial of the charity’s publication Triple Helix:
‘Dr Richard Scott was accused of ‘harassment’ and told by the medical regulator that he risked bringing the profession into disrepute by discussing his religious beliefs. He has however refused to accept a formal warning on his record, and is arguing that he acted within official GMC guidelines.
‘Dr Scott, a doctor for 28 years, works at the Bethesda Medical Centre where six of its partners are Christians. Their official NHS Choices website states that they are likely to discuss spiritual matters with patients during consultations.’
(The Plain Truth took a look at the official NHS website for Bethesda Medical Centre, where its Christian ethos is stated clearly on its ‘Welcome’ page. And even has a statement under the heading ‘Our approach to your healthcare’ as: Bethesda was a place in the Bible where Christ healed a lame man and means literally 'house of mercy'. www.nhs.uk/ServiceDirectories/Pages/GP.aspx?Pid=811C3E8F-2C51-491F-A293-D10280958E06&TopicId=11)
Peter Saunders’ editorial continues: ‘The conversation with the patient in question only turned to faith issues after they had explored fully the medical options and only after Dr Scott asked if he could talk about his Christian beliefs and was given the go-ahead.
‘After receiving the patient’s complaint, [which we understand came from the patient’s mother] the GMC, without investigating the matter further, sent Dr Scott a letter warning him over his conduct and told him that the way he expressed his religious beliefs had ‘distressed’ the patient and did “not meet with the standards required of a doctor”.
‘Niall Dickson, chief executive of the GMC, was reported by the Daily Telegraph as saying: “Our guidance – which all doctors must follow – is clear. Doctors should not normally discuss their personal beliefs with patients unless those beliefs are directly relevant to the patient’s care. They must also not impose their beliefs on patients or cause distress by the inappropriate or insensitive expression of religious, political or other beliefs or views.”’
‘However, in a later debate on Radio 4’s PM programme, in which I also took part, Dickson was able to give a fuller context to his comments and actually confirmed the appropriateness of sensitive faith discussions with patients. There may be circumstances where a patient is at a point where they do want to discuss faith and it may be appropriate for the doctor to reflect on their own faith during that discussion.
‘When asked how frequently exploitation of a vulnerable patient occurred in practice he said that it was very uncommon and had happened only on a couple of occasions: “The vast majority of doctors with faith know how to talk to patients and know where the patient is at. Even if you haven’t got faith you should, if a patient wants to talk about faith, be able to respond positively.”’
Peter Saunders’ final statement in this editorial states: ‘Let’s pray that the GMC handles Dr Scott’s case wisely and let’s all be encouraged to practise medicine that addresses the needs of the whole person, to take opportunities to address spiritual issues impacting on health, and to share our own faith if it is appropriate to do so.’
But the final word on the case of Dr Scott comes from an article in The Telegraph in May 2011. ‘The GMC’s excessive reaction is part of a tendency: a number of institutions and companies have, in a misguided attempt to be "multicultural", banned Christian symbols and overt expressions of faith, something that would never be attempted in the case of other religions. And yet the Christian faith is central to our country’s history and our traditions.’
< Contents
The Plain Truth is an independent charity.
© copyright 2004-2011 The Plain Truth.