DR RICHARD SCOTT, a Christian GP, reprimanded last week for sharing his beliefs with a patient, fell foul of “disturbing” restrictions on the expression of faith, the Bishop of Dover, the Rt Revd Trevor Willmott, has said.
A General Medical Council (GMC) investigation committee ruled on Thursday of last week that, in discussing his faith with a patient, Dr Scott (above) had acted in an “inappropriate” way that was “clinically not in the . . . best interest” of the patient. Dr Scott was given an official warning, which will be published for five years and then kept on record indefinitely and disclosed to employers on request. Writing in the Church Times, Bishop Willmott criticises the GMC for failing to provide criteria to judge the “appropriateness or otherwise of matters of faith and its relevance to clinical care”, which is a “concern for both society and for individuals. . .
“I am anxious about the expectations in some parts of our society that Christians should seek to compartmentalise their faith”.
The complaint about Dr Scott, who works at the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, was made in August 2010, after he discussed his faith with a patient who was described by the GMC’s lawyer as having a “troubled psychological history” (News, 27 May 2011).
Although the committee recognised last week that matters of faith were not “irrelevant” to clinical care, and that there were “many circumstances” in which spiritual care was valuable, it agreed with the GMC’s lawyer, Andrew Hurst, that Dr Scott had “gone too far”.
Dr Scott had never met the patient before, and had been asked to address the “urgent concerns” of the patient’s mother — who made the subsequent complaint — about her son. The “insensitive expression” of his beliefs had caused “distress” to the patient, the GMC committee ruled.
It was “not satisfied” that Dr Scott would not repeat his actions. Had there been more than one case, he would have “undoubtedly” been referred to a fitness-to-practice panel.
The committee noted that there was a “direct conflict of evidence” between the accounts of the consultation provided by Dr Scott and the patient. This was the result of their “differing perceptions”, it concluded. It said that a “number” of Dr Scott’s responses were, however, “in conflict with the evidence”. It questioned whether a treatment plan had been discussed with the patient, and suggested that it was “unlikely” that the discussion about faith had lasted only two-and-a-half minutes.
It was “not proved” that Dr Scott had “continuously” asked the patient about his religion, or that he had told the patient that “until he was ready to turn to Jesus that he would eternally suffer”, or that this was the patient’s “one and only hope of recovery”. It was not proved that Dr Scott had failed to refer the patient to local psychiatric services.
Nevertheless, the committee judged that it was proved that Dr Scott had told the patient that, unless he turned towards Jesus and handed Jesus his suffering, he would suffer for the rest of his life, and that “the devil haunts people” who do not follow this path. Dr Scott accepted that he “had made reference to the devil during the consultation”, but he did “not accept using the term ‘haunt’”. But he had, it was concluded, told the patient that his own religion, which was undisclosed, could not offer him any protection.
The committee also received information from the National Secular Society, which alleged that Dr Scott had spoken on national media suggesting that his own faith had more to offer than that of the patient.
Dr Scott has said that he is “outraged” by the decision. He is seeking further legal advice about a judicial review of the GMC’s handling of the case. “It is recognised by many peer-reviewed articles that faith helps ill people.”
Comment
Question of the week: Is the surgery the right place for discussions of faith?
Comment
Question of the week: Is the surgery the right place for discussions of faith?