Editor—The report from the chief medical officer for England has implications for all UK doctors and needs to be considered very carefully.1 Its aim is a system of medical regulation that puts patients' safety first through the early detection, and where possible, remediation, of poor performance. If the report contributes to that aim, and commands public and professional support, it should be welcomed by everyone involved in health care.
The Merrison report was the collective effort of Sir William Merrison and the other 14 members of his committee of inquiry, who took both oral and written evidence.2 A different process has been followed in this case. The government, sensibly, has therefore decided on a period of consultation during which the recommendations can be properly debated, tested, and costed. We have already said that we believe that the recommendations to divorce oversight of medical education from the other regulatory functions of standards, registration, and fitness to practise are not in patients' best interests. We will now be consulting widely with our partners before we submit our considered response.
Figure 1.
Credit: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
It may be another 30 years before there is another opportunity such as this. We must seize it so that future generations of patients can say that we did not fail them.
Competing interests: GC is president of the GMC.
References
- 1.Pringle M. Regulation and revalidation of doctors. BMJ 2006;333: 161-2. (22 July.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Merrison report. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Regulation of the Medical Profession. London: HMSO, 1975. (Cmnd.6018.)