Earlier this week, I attended the Scottsdale public meeting to support Dr Paul McGinity along with more than 200 angry locals.
Anyone who took the time to attend and listen to the range of speakers could only have concluded that there is an agenda to pursue Dr McGinity at the expense of due process and natural justice.
He has been treated appallingly. And as a result, so have his many loyal patients, who are suffering the indignity of not having ready access to their doctor of choice.
There has been plenty of coverage as to how this issue evolved and there’s no shortage of commentary. However I want to throw the following key points into the mix:
Protecting the community
We do need robust processes that protect the community when there are well-founded serious concerns about the competence of a health practitioner. If there are serious allegations then they should be fully investigated. That’s not the issue here because that’s something we all agree on. The key issues here are to do with due process, integrity in government and natural justice.
Access to health services
The North East must not be deprived of proper health services, including access to GPs. While this saga has now been dragging on for 18 weeks, there is no clear end in sight. Dr McGinity wishes to provide health care and his patients want it. From the little we are told, it seems clear that he hasn’t been suspended on the basis that he isn’t a danger to his patients or done anything immoral or illegal. (If he was a safety risk, why would he be allowed to practice 18 hours per week without oversight?).
Extraordinary costs
Because of Medical Council conditions, Dr McGinity must be overseen by a locum (a relief GP) which is costing upwards of $5,000 per week. The Government should provide some assistance to Dr McGinity for additional costs arising from this drawn-out debacle given that Lara Giddings continues to run the limp line that her “hands are tied” on the behaviour of the Medical Council and that she is clearly responsible for the appointment of members of the MCT and the law governing its operation.
Conflict of Interest?
I make no allegation here, but I raise an important issue. The point that must be publicly resolved is whether or not the Medical Council President has a potential conflict of interest, and if so, how it is being managed. Dr Peter Sexton was on the sub-committee which purported to initially suspend Dr McGinity and was then found by the Supreme Court to have acted wrongly. He has also been the spokesman for the MCT and in spite of talking in an inflammatory way about serious allegations linked to patients who have since died (and who therefore of course cannot speak for themselves), he has subsequently revealed on ABC radio that the complaints against the doctor related to him working too many hours! His direct quote (see ABC Website) was “Where we have serious concerns about a particular component of a doctor’s medical practice, the only powers we have to control that are to suspend the doctor and then invite the doctor through undertakings to agree to restrictions on his practice”. Isn’t that just being heavy handed? Now, Medicare Australia holds confidential and privileged records of all doctors’ bulk billing records, including the number and duration of consultations with patients. Dr Sexton is Tasmanian state director of Medicare. The public must be satisfied that privileged information gained in one job could not have been used in the Medical Council deliberations.
Where is Labor? Missing in a crisis, again.
Elected Labor representatives must come out of hiding on this issue. It was certainly telling that the Labor Party failed to show up (except a silent note-taker) to address the meeting. It’s clear that the culture of “wait and let it blow over” continues to be the political strategy being employed by Michelle O’Byrne, Jodie Campbell and other labor wannabees. All Labor MPs must show an interest and make some comment in support of the cause or give reasons for their reluctance to support the community. We need their support to get the best outcome. So even though I am a natural rival of the ALP, I encourage them to change strategy and help us achieve what is good for the whole community. Remember, all we are asking from anyone is for due process and proper health services. Who could possibly have a problem with that?
Labor mates
Perhaps Dr Sexton’s past membership of the ALP is relevant in explaining Labor’s reluctance to do anything or ask any tough questions on this critical issue. Is he still a member? At the very least we know that under state law all members of the MCT are nominated by the Bartlett Labor Government.
Congratulations to some great people!
Finally congratulations to the support committee for their advocacy of due process, natural justice and access to a GP.
Michael,
Dr Sexton’s characterisation of support for Dr McGinity as a ‘PR Campaign’ and the actions of his supporters as like a ‘soccer crowd’ are appaling and do him and the Medical Council no credit. His public position is insensitive and as a result, creates doubt about the level of procedural fairness that will be afforded to Dr McGinity. The Health Minister’s comment (Examiner 24 June) that suspended doctors shouldn’t “have public rallies,” appears equally insensitive. It is of concern to me that there would be any negative comment about Dr McGinity’s supporters exercising their democratic right to voice their concerns – either from Dr Sexton or more disturbingly, from the State Health Minister.
I believe a couple of key ‘messages’ have been conveyed by the actions of Dr McGinity’s supporters to date:
•Their sustained and very public support for Dr McGinity sends a powerful message of a community supporting a long-serving medical practitioner, who they trust and believe in.
•They are rightly objecting to the ‘process debacle’ that has characterised the treatment of their Doctor to date. Many of the actions taken by The Medical Council appear illogical from a policy perspective.
The point made by Yasmin Rawnsley in the Examiner (letters 25 June) is well made. There are clear divisions in the community, which is an unfortunate consequence of the Medical Council’s investigative process. There is a clear imperative, therefore, for the Medical Council to complete its investigations as soon as possible and in a way that affords Dr McGinity the procedural fairness he is entitled to. Protracted investigation has the potential to deepen community divisions, diminish trust in the Medical Council and potentially lead to demands for an Independent Review of this case. Lara Giddings and Jodie Campbell must act – and soon.
Andrew Nikolic