Advertisement

Legal precedent and medical ethics: Some problems encountered by the general medical council in relying upon precedent when declaring acceptable standards of professional conduct

  • Russell G. Smith
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 49)

Abstract

In 1858, legislation was enacted in Britain which created a statutory body entitled the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom [13]. This title, which was subsequently described by Viscount Addison in the House of Lords as “a cumbersome name” the initials of which “have often befogged many of us in the past” ([9], p. 913) and which was later abbreviated to General Medical Council or “G.M.C.” [14], contains reference to the two principal functions of the Council: the determination of whose name should be permitted to be placed upon the Medical Register; and the determination of whose name should be removed from the Register. The G.M.C. performed the first function by setting and monitoring educational standards for doctors; it performed the second by holding judicial, disciplinary inquiries. In exercising these functions, the Council, through its constituent bodies and Committees, indirectly became involved in the declaration of acceptable standards of professional conduct and medical ethics.

Keywords

Medical Ethic Medical Practitioner Executive Committee Professional Conduct Acceptable Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    British Medical Journal.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carr-Saunders, A. M. and Wilson, P. A.: 1933, The Professions, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daly, A.: 1990, A Doctor’s Story, Macmillan London Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Draper, M.: 1980, “Elections to the G.M.C.,” in General Medical Council, Annual Report 1979, p. 8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edinburgh Medical Journal.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.M.C Minutes.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    General Medical Council: January 1993, Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practise, London.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Happel, J. S.: 1985, “Advice on good practice from the Standards Committee”, Journal of Medical Ethics 11, 39–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    House of Lords: 1950 Parliamentary Debates, 166, 18 April 1950.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Little, E.G.: 1926 “The General Medical Council”, The Nineteenth Century and After, DLXXXVIII, 149, 151.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacAlister, D.: 1906, Introductory Address on the General Medical Council: Its Powers and Its Work, Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Medical Act 1858 (21 & 22 Viet. c. 90).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Medical Act 1950 (14 Geo. 6 c. 29).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Medical Act 1983 (c. 54).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medical Press and Circular.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pyke-Lees, W.: 1958, Centenary of the General Medical Council, 1858–1958.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Regulation of the Medical Profession (Chairman: Dr. A. W. Merrison) 1975, Cmnd. 6018, H.M.S.O., London.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw, G. B.: 1931, Doctors’ Delusions, Constable & Co. Ltd., London, 47–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smith, R. G.. 1994, Medical Discipline: The Professional Conduct Jurisdiction of the General Medical Council, 1858–1990, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Queen, On the Prosecution of Richard Organ v General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom: 1861, 30 L. J. (Q. B.) 201.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publsihers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell G. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.the Criminology Department of the University of Melbourne

Personalised recommendations