The right decision but the wrong reason

Mr W's panel agreed that the allegation against Mr R did not amount to a damnation of his fitness to practice. If you want to read their decision you will have to email the HPC because it won't be published on the website.

Why not? Because Mr R wants his name removed from any further damaging publicity. Fair enough.

I wonder, tho, whether the HPC would consider publishing an apology.

This seems only right. For it was they who thought that Ms B had uncovered a serious case of misconduct that amounted to a significant threat to the public's safety; and it was they who have made Mr R's life extremely unpleasant during the time it takes for the allegation to actually come to trial; and it was they who hired the legal counsel (Ms T) to attack Mr R on their behalf in public on January 5th, 2009. Yes, I would say she attacked and have asked for the full transcript so that I can describe it on a future blog where you may judge for yourself. From my seat in the public gallery it seemed almost obscene to allow her to hammer away for so long when the case was so obvious a non-starter. The law lost its position of objectivity and Ms T went out for her own satisfaction to get a positive result. Not professional, not competent. And Ms B? What might we think of her fitness to practise, judged on her actions in this case?

But the reason that the panel gave for coming to its conclusion continues to miss the point. To be charitable, I shall say that the HPC has been set up on a twisted logic which makes it very difficult for anyone to do a decent job there. The twist is of course difficult to reveal - it is concealed behind a facade which effectively corrupts the truth (hence my reference to George Smiley in the twitter bar) and it will be the subject of several more blog entries, I'm sure. But for now I need to focus on the point of the unfortunate Mr R's Kafkaesque experience.

If you remember, Mr R is a speech and language therapist. This work is not renowned for is life threatening qualities, unlike, say heart surgery, or administering morphine. Nor is it clear why only an NHS employee in office hours may administer a treatment. What is the evidence that giving extra sessions outside the jurisdiction of the NHS will present a danger to the public? Absolutely none in this case.

The taken for granted assumption behind the HPC's action against Mr R can be deduced: that professionals are greedy, money grabbing creatures who will deceive the public if they are not subject to close scrutiny by their colleagues and managers in the NHS together with the weight of authority of the HPC. Puerile.

Mr R is innocent even if he charges the going rate for extra sessions. In fact, by charging the going rate he enters into a relation where both he and his clients are protected. The financial arrangement between people is in itself a form of regulation. The HPC and the NHS here seem to think that money is a filthy contaminator which must be treated like excrement that only they have the expertise to manage. They have invented a new harm - money - against which the public must be protected. This idea is juvenile and has no place in an institution underwritten by the laws of this land.