[back] Donegan Fitness to practice hearing 2007


"GP cleared of misconduct over MMR evidence (August 25, 2007)

"A doctor accused of misleading a court over the risks of MMR and other vaccines was today cleared by medical watchdogs of serious professional misconduct. Jayne Donegan, a GP in Herne Hill, south London, "convinced herself" of the dangers of vaccines, leading her to give false evidence, the General Medical Council heard. She was accused of quoting selectively from medical reports and omitting information that did not support her views. But after a three-week hearing Dr Donegan was cleared of failing in her duty of impartiality by deliberately giving biased expert witness testimony."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2155992,00.html

Inevitably, the impression given is that Jayne was let off in some way, but this is not how this kind of GMC hearing functions. The reality is that the GMC went on an elaborate fishing expedition against her but the fact was that in cruelly unfavourable circumstances, with little time and no experience as an expert witness, she had performed an all but faultless job. She knew the studies, and exactly where they limits lay - and that their data often did not support their conclusions . She was also careful to present evidence favourable to vaccine where she saw it. I do not think the issue of deliberately misleading a court ever arose: the GMC would not have let her off if there had been any evidence either of incompetence, or of misleading the court unwittingly. Jayne was cleared because she gave thoroughly capable and competent evidence all along. This is a shameful saga.

John Stone
 

United Kingdom
233 Posts

Posted - 08/26/2007 :  14:41:10  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
However, it is pleasant to record that GMC panel were not mealy mouthed in clearing Jayne, stating:

"The panel were sure that at no stage did you allow any views that you held to overrule your duty to the court and the litigants."

"The panel is sure that in the reports you provided you did not fail to be objective, independent and unbiased."

"Accordingly the panel found that you are not guilty of serious professional misconduct."

This exhaustive review has completely failed to substantiate Mr Justice Sedley's allegation that Jayne's evidence was "junk science".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/story/0,,1299268,00.html

Out of 63 specific criticisms made by the prosecution expert, David Elliman, the panel upheld only two marginal points.