Re: GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner 22nd February 2012

[Guest guest]

Great news, but is there any way to find out how much this farce has cost the public purse.Lilian

However, on the basis that there has been no demonstrable harm to any of the five patients, and on the basis of the Fitness to Practice determination, the Panel is not satisfied that Dr Skinner may pose a real risk to patients and therefore it is not necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in Dr Skinner's own interests to make an order in accordance with Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 as amended.

 

In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered its functions and powers and has determined that the information before it today is insufficient to indicate that Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice may be impaired and that he may pose a real risk either to patients or the public interest.

 

Notification of this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act 1983 as amended.

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you for that Sheila J

Soooo.....

Dr Shilvock's patient had left his practice following his suggestion that he or she discontinue the treatment instituted by Dr Skinner....

Good on her or him !! - Do I understand correctly that Dr. Shilvock is one of the 5 accusers? And who are the other 4 – are we allowed to know?

Love,

xx

[Guest guest]

Wonderful news! Thank you, Sheila.

I came across members of the Bad Science website discussing his method of treating by symptoms. This was the same forum who accused Dr Myhill (remember Jonas?). The threads were back in November 2010. http://badscience.net/forum/search.php?st=0 & sk=t & sd=d & sr=posts & keywords=gordon+skinner

I agree with . It would be good to know who these other doctors are and if there were any endocrinologists involved.Love JacquiePS: Am on five Thiroyd p/d (2 weeks now) and sweats have stopped but am now freezing cold. Will post more on another thread. Have felt an improvement but still not well. Will post more with temps BP etc on another thread.

[Guest guest]

Excellent outcomeSent from my BlackBerry� wireless deviceFrom: "SheilaT" <sheila@...>

Sender: thyroid treatment

Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:08:49 -0000<thyroid treatment >Reply thyroid treatment

Subject: GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner 22nd February 2012

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

Mr Haycroft: The Panel has carefully considered all the information before it including the submissions made by Mr on behalf of the GMC, those made by you on behalf of Dr Skinner, the documentation provided and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

>Notification of this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act 1983 as amended.

[Ed]

[Guest guest]

What needs to happen is that we find out who these doctors are and then make

complaints about their treatment as they have failed to provide patient care.

>

>

> GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

>

>

>

> Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

>

> Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much Sheila! However, sticking a knife in 5 " and pulling it out 3 "

is no favour, is it?

I'm sure many, many are relieved (whilst annoyed that this ever happened).

Anyone know who the docs are yet?

Yes, I'd be happy to be a Skinnerette or a Skinneroid ;-)

>

> GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

>

> Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

>

> Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

>

>

[Guest guest]

THREE CHEERS FOR DR SKINNER AND THE TPA.

I wonder how much it would cost, as I have seen suggested that these 5 Doctors

should now have to appear before the GMC for lack of treatment for the patients

concerned, and could it just pave the way for other cases, when GP's are not

giving their patients the correct care.

Could there be some possibility here.

Kathleen

>

>

> GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

>

>

>

> Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

>

> Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

>

>

[Guest guest]

brilliant, let's hope they leave him alone now

>

>

> GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

>

>

>

> Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

>

> Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

>

>

>

> Mr Haycroft: The Panel has carefully considered all the information

> before it including the submissions made by Mr on behalf of the

> GMC, those made by you on behalf of Dr Skinner, the documentation

> provided and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

>

[Ed]

[Guest guest]

Sheila,

I'm assuming this is to go on the website..... but it's a bit strange, has it been altered? The bit that makes no sense is now in red..... should it be complaint, not referral?

xx

amanda

From: SheilaT

Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:08 PM

thyroid treatment

Subject: GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner 22nd February 2012

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

Mr Haycroft: The Panel has carefully considered all the information before it including the submissions made by Mr on behalf of the GMC, those made by you on behalf of Dr Skinner, the documentation provided and the advice of the Legal Assessor.

The Panel has fully considered all submissions made and has weighed in the balance all the information before it. The Panel has noted that it is not its purpose to resolve any conflict of information, to determine on matters relating to the efficacy or appropriateness of treatment regimes, or to determine fact. The Panel has also reminded itself of the test it must apply and of its nature, function and powers as well as the GMC's Guidance Good Medical Practice and the Duties of a Doctor contained therein.

The Panel has heard that the GMC has received five letters from medical professionals expressing their concerns about Dr Skinner's prescribing practices. It has been provided with details of those concerns. In essence, despite each of the five patients being within the normal range of thyroid function tests, Dr Skinner as gone on to prescribe thyroxine at high levels. As a results of these concerns, a Case Examiner considered the information and reached the decision that Dr Skinner should be invited to appear before the Interim orders Panel. Formal notification of this decision was sent to Dr Skinner by letter dated 10th February 2012.

Mr , on behalf of the GMC submitted that an order of at least conditions would be appropriate to address the new concerns raised in relation to Dr Skinner's private endocrine practice.

The Panel has noted the letter dated 15th February 2012 from Radcliffe LeBrasseur, Solicitors, in which it is stated that 4 of the letters were received by the GMC between 17th June and 17th November 2011, but were not copied to them despite the Council being aware that they were Dr Skinner's representative. It is further stated that all of the complaints were received by the GMC prior to the conclusion of Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice Review Hearing, which took place on 14 to 17 November 2011.

You submitted that none of the complaints received identify any harm having come to the patients in question and that one patient had expressed her clear disapproval for the course adopted by her general practitioner in making a referral as she was entirely satisfied with the care provided by Dr Skinner. Dr Shilvock's patient had left his practice following his suggestion that he or she discontinue the treatment instituted by Dr Skinner. You have today presented an Email from the patient who was the subject matter of the first of the five complaints, expressing her unequivocal support of Dr Skinner. You submitted that such support was consistent with the large volume of patient testimonials which the GMC has received throughout the course of Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice proceedings.

You submitted that the issue of patient's safety has been thoroughly considered by the recent FTP review, the findings of which post date these complaints. That hearing also reviewed D Skinner's compliance with the conditions that had been imposed on his practice for a period of some four years and received expert evidence in relation to his practice. The FTP Panel found that Dr Skinner had complied with his conditions and that "there was no evidence of patient harm, nor any evidence of misconduct or deficient professional performance". The FTP Panel concluded that his fitness to practice was not impaired.

You submitted on Dr Skinner's behalf that each of the complaints that this IOP has received do not raise any new issues. They relate to the prescribing of thyroid replacement therapy for patients who are "biochemically euthyroid" and the potential for adverse effects for thyroid replacement, which was the "central issue" considered at the FTP Review where those matters were thoroughly considered by the Panel and disposed of without any criticism of Dr Skinner.

You submitted that the issues raised in these complaints have already been determined and Dr Skinner has born a significant burden for many years in complying with his conditions. You submitted that as the complaints raised no new matters, and in light of the FTP's disposal of those very same concerns in November 2011, there could be no realistic prospect that the material disclosed in these recent complaints could call Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice into question.

You submitted that proportionality should be taken into account and that there is clear evidence that any order of conditions or suspension would directly affect patient care and have an adverse impact on the many patients who are under Dr Skinner's care. You submitted that no action should be taken against Dr Skinner.

The Panel has carefully considered the evidence submitted and the submissions you have made on Dr Skinner's behalf, in particular that Dr Skinner's approach is not followed by the majority of doctors. It notes that Dr Skinner has not adhered to normal prescribing practices of thyroxine and that he has put GP's in a difficult position by advising continuing treatment outwith practice guidelines. The Panel further notes that there is no monitoring of Dr Skinner's practice and is concerned by his lack of appraisal and CDP training.

However, on the basis that there has been no demonstrable harm to any of the five patients, and on the basis of the Fitness to Practice determination, the Panel is not satisfied that Dr Skinner may pose a real risk to patients and therefore it is not necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in Dr Skinner's own interests to make an order in accordance with Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 as amended.

In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered its functions and powers and has determined that the information before it today is insufficient to indicate that Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice may be impaired and that he may pose a real risk either to patients or the public interest.

Notification of this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act 1983 as amended.

[Guest guest]

Yes, that's correct, the doctor referred the complaint to the GMC.Add

this to the other links in Dr Skinner's GMC Hearing

Luv - Sheila

From: thyroid treatment

[mailto:thyroid treatment ] On Behalf Of Galathea

Sent: 01 March 2012 23:04

thyroid treatment

Subject: Re: GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr

Gordon Bruce Skinner 22nd February 2012

Sheila,

I'm assuming this is to go on the website..... but it's a

bit strange, has it been altered? The bit that

makes no sense is now in red..... should it be complaint, not referral?

xx

amanda

From: SheilaT

Sent: Thursday, March 01,

2012 7:08 PM

thyroid treatment

Subject:

GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr Gordon Bruce

Skinner 22nd February 2012

GENERAL

MEDICAL COUNCIL

Interim

Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

Dr

Gordon Bruce Skinner

Mr Haycroft: The

Panel has carefully considered all the information before it including the

submissions made by Mr on behalf of the GMC, those made by you on

behalf of Dr Skinner, the documentation provided and the advice of the Legal

Assessor.

The Panel has fully

considered all submissions made and has weighed in the balance all the

information before it. The Panel has noted that it is not its purpose to

resolve any conflict of information, to determine on matters relating to the

efficacy or appropriateness of treatment regimes, or to determine fact. The

Panel has also reminded itself of the test it must apply and of its nature,

function and powers as well as the GMC's Guidance Good Medical Practice and the

Duties of a Doctor contained therein.

The Panel has heard

that the GMC has received five letters from medical professionals expressing

their concerns about Dr Skinner's prescribing practices. It has been provided

with details of those concerns. In essence, despite each of the five patients

being within the normal range of thyroid function tests, Dr Skinner as gone on

to prescribe thyroxine at high levels. As a results of these concerns, a Case

Examiner considered the information and reached the decision that Dr Skinner

should be invited to appear before the Interim orders Panel. Formal

notification of this decision was sent to Dr Skinner by letter dated 10th

February 2012.

Mr , on

behalf of the GMC submitted that an order of at least conditions would be

appropriate to address the new concerns raised in relation to Dr Skinner's

private endocrine practice.

The Panel has noted

the letter dated 15th February 2012 from Radcliffe LeBrasseur,

Solicitors, in which it is stated that 4 of the letters were received by the

GMC between 17th June and 17th November 2011, but were

not copied to them despite the Council being aware that they were Dr Skinner's

representative. It is further stated that all of the complaints were received

by the GMC prior to the conclusion of Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice Review

Hearing, which took place on 14 to 17 November 2011.

You submitted that

none of the complaints received identify any harm having come to the patients

in question and that one patient had expressed her clear disapproval for the

course adopted by her general practitioner in making a referral

as she was entirely satisfied with the care provided by Dr Skinner. Dr

Shilvock's patient had left his practice following his suggestion that he or

she discontinue the treatment instituted by Dr Skinner. You have today

presented an Email from the patient who was the subject matter of the first of

the five complaints, expressing her unequivocal support of Dr Skinner. You

submitted that such support was consistent with the large volume of patient

testimonials which the GMC has received throughout the course of Dr Skinner's

Fitness to Practice proceedings.

You submitted that

the issue of patient's safety has been thoroughly considered by the recent FTP

review, the findings of which post date these complaints. That hearing also

reviewed D Skinner's compliance with the conditions that had been imposed on

his practice for a period of some four years and received expert evidence in

relation to his practice. The FTP Panel found that Dr Skinner had

complied with his conditions and that " there was no evidence of patient

harm, nor any evidence of misconduct or deficient professional performance " .

The FTP Panel concluded that his fitness to practice was not impaired.

You submitted on Dr

Skinner's behalf that each of the complaints that this IOP has received do not

raise any new issues. They relate to the prescribing of thyroid replacement

therapy for patients who are " biochemically euthyroid " and the

potential for adverse effects for thyroid replacement, which was the

" central issue " considered at the FTP Review where those matters were

thoroughly considered by the Panel and disposed of without any criticism of Dr

Skinner.

You submitted that

the issues raised in these complaints have already been determined and Dr

Skinner has born a significant burden for many years in complying with his

conditions. You submitted that as the complaints raised no new matters, and in

light of the FTP's disposal of those very same concerns in November 2011, there

could be no realistic prospect that the material disclosed in these recent

complaints could call Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice into question.

You submitted that

proportionality should be taken into account and that there is clear evidence

that any order of conditions or suspension would directly affect patient care

and have an adverse impact on the many patients who are under Dr Skinner's care.

You submitted that no action should be taken against Dr Skinner.

The Panel has

carefully considered the evidence submitted and the submissions you have made

on Dr Skinner's behalf, in particular that Dr Skinner's approach is not

followed by the majority of doctors. It notes that Dr Skinner has not adhered

to normal prescribing practices of thyroxine and that he has put GP's in a

difficult position by advising continuing treatment outwith practice

guidelines. The Panel further notes that there is no monitoring of Dr Skinner's

practice and is concerned by his lack of appraisal and CDP training.

However, on the

basis that there has been no demonstrable harm to any of the five patients, and

on the basis of the Fitness to Practice determination, the Panel is not

satisfied that Dr Skinner may pose a real risk to patients and therefore it is

not necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in Dr

Skinner's own interests to make an order in accordance with Section 41A of the

Medical Act 1983 as amended.

In reaching its

decision, the Panel has considered its functions and powers and has determined

that the information before it today is insufficient to indicate that Dr

Skinner's Fitness to Practice may be impaired and that he may pose a real risk

either to patients or the public interest.

Notification of

this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act

1983 as amended.

No

virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4844 - Release Date: 03/01/12

[Guest guest]

Morning Sheila Is this Determination saved somewhere in the files? I'd like to refer someone to it. Thank you From: SheilaT <sheila@...> thyroid treatment Sent: Thursday, 1 March 2012, 19:08 Subject: GMC Determination of the IOP of Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner 22nd February 2012

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012 Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner Mr Haycroft: The Panel has carefully considered all the information before it including the submissions made by Mr on behalf of the GMC, those made by you on behalf of Dr Skinner, the documentation provided and the advice of the Legal Assessor. The Panel has fully considered all submissions made and has weighed in the balance all the information before it. The Panel has noted that it is not its purpose to resolve any conflict of information, to determine on matters relating to the efficacy or appropriateness of treatment regimes, or to determine fact. The Panel has also reminded itself of the test it must apply and of its nature, function and powers as well as the GMC's Guidance Good Medical Practice and the Duties of a Doctor contained therein. The Panel has heard that the GMC has received five letters from medical professionals expressing their concerns about Dr Skinner's prescribing practices. It has been provided with details of those concerns. In essence, despite each of the five patients being within the normal range of thyroid function tests, Dr Skinner as gone on to prescribe thyroxine at high levels. As a results of these concerns, a Case Examiner considered the information and reached the decision that Dr Skinner should be invited to appear before the Interim orders Panel. Formal notification of this decision was sent to Dr Skinner by letter dated 10th February 2012. Mr , on behalf of the GMC submitted that an order of at least conditions would be appropriate to address the new concerns raised in relation to Dr Skinner's private endocrine practice. The Panel has noted the letter dated 15th February 2012 from Radcliffe LeBrasseur, Solicitors, in which it is stated that 4 of the letters were received by the GMC between 17th June and 17th November 2011, but were not copied to them despite the Council being aware that they were Dr Skinner's representative. It is further stated that all of the complaints were received by the GMC prior to the conclusion of Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice Review Hearing, which took place on 14 to 17 November 2011. You submitted that none of the complaints received identify any harm having come to the patients in question and that one patient had expressed her clear disapproval for the course adopted by her general practitioner in making a referral as she was entirely satisfied with the care provided by Dr Skinner. Dr Shilvock's patient had left his practice following his suggestion that he or she discontinue the treatment instituted by Dr Skinner. You have today presented an Email from the patient who was the subject matter of the first of the five complaints, expressing her unequivocal support of Dr Skinner. You submitted that such support was consistent with the large volume of patient testimonials which the GMC has received throughout the course of Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice proceedings. You submitted that the issue of patient's safety has been thoroughly considered by the recent FTP review, the findings of which post date these complaints. That hearing also reviewed D Skinner's compliance with the conditions that had been imposed on his practice for a period of some four years and received expert evidence in relation to his practice. The FTP Panel found that Dr Skinner had complied with his conditions and that "there was no evidence of patient harm, nor any evidence of misconduct or deficient professional performance". The FTP Panel concluded that his fitness to practice was not impaired. You submitted on Dr Skinner's behalf that each of the complaints that this IOP has received do not raise any new issues. They relate to the prescribing of thyroid replacement therapy for patients who are "biochemically euthyroid" and the potential for adverse effects for thyroid replacement, which was the "central issue" considered at the FTP Review where those matters were thoroughly considered by the Panel and disposed of without any criticism of Dr Skinner. You submitted that the issues raised in these complaints have already been determined and Dr Skinner has born a significant burden for many years in complying with his conditions. You submitted that as the complaints raised no new matters, and in light of the FTP's disposal of those very same concerns in November 2011, there could be no realistic prospect that the material disclosed in these recent complaints could call Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice into question. You submitted that proportionality should be taken into account and that there is clear evidence that any order of conditions or suspension would directly affect patient care and have an adverse impact on the many patients who are under Dr Skinner's care. You submitted that no action should be taken against Dr Skinner. The Panel has carefully considered the evidence submitted and the submissions you have made on Dr Skinner's behalf, in particular that Dr Skinner's approach is not followed by the majority of doctors. It notes that Dr Skinner has not adhered to normal prescribing practices of thyroxine and that he has put GP's in a difficult position by advising continuing treatment outwith practice guidelines. The Panel further notes that there is no monitoring of Dr Skinner's practice and is concerned by his lack of appraisal and CDP training. However, on the basis that there has been no demonstrable harm to any of the five patients, and on the basis of the Fitness to Practice determination, the Panel is not satisfied that Dr Skinner may pose a real risk to patients and therefore it is not necessary for the protection of the public, in the public interest or in Dr Skinner's own interests to make an order in accordance with Section 41A of the Medical Act 1983 as amended. In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered its functions and powers and has determined that the information before it today is insufficient to indicate that Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice may be impaired and that he may pose a real risk either to patients or the public interest. Notification of this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act 1983 as amended.

[Guest guest]

Hi Caroline and everybody, the GMC mentioned only the one doctor.

We will have to wait until they send me a copy of the full transcript before we

know the full names of the other four doctors concerned. Once they are in the

public domain, only then can we decide whether any action needs to be taken. I

have no idea how long this is likely to be, but as it lasted only one day, it

shouldn't be long. As soon as I have received this, I will post it online.

Luv - Sheila

What needs to happen is that we find out who these doctors are and then make

complaints about their treatment as they have failed to provide patient care.

>

>

> GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL

>

>

>

> Interim Orders Panel 22nd February 2012

>

> Dr Gordon Bruce Skinner

>

>

>

No

virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4844 - Release Date: 03/01/12

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheila

So pleased Dr Skinner has been exonerated again, what a waste of public money!

Luv Stephie

In reaching its decision, the Panel has considered its functions and powers and has determined that the information before it today is insufficient to indicate that Dr Skinner's Fitness to Practice may be impaired and that he may pose a real risk either to patients or the public interest.

Notification of this decision will be served upon Dr Skinner in accordance with the medical Act 1983 as amended.