 |
|
GMC
announces Wakefield
MMR misconduct hearing
After an
investigation by Brian Deer, on 3 June 2007 the
UK's
General Medical Council issued this notice of
disciplinary
proceedings against Andrew Wakefield (left) and others
|
Fitness to Practise
Panel, planned dates: 16 July – 19 October 2007
The Fitness to
Practise Panel will meet at Regent’s Place, 350
Euston Road, London NW1 3JN, to consider these new
cases of conduct.
This case will be
considered by a Fitness to Practise Panel applying
the General Medical Council’s Preliminary
Proceedings Committee and Professional Conduct
Committee (Procedure) Rules 1988.
Dr Andrew WAKEFIELD
GMC Reference number: 2733564
Professor WALKER-SMITH
GMC Reference number: 1700583
Professor Simon MURCH
GMC Reference number: 2540201
The GMC's statutory
purpose is to protect, promote and maintain the
health and safety of the public by ensuring proper
standards in the practice of medicine.
We investigate
complaints about individual doctors in order to
establish whether their fitness to practise is
impaired and whether to remove or restrict a
doctor’s registration.
The GMC does not
regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between
competing scientific theories generated in the course
of medical research.
The following is a
summary only of the allegations which will be made
before the Panel at the forthcoming hearing.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations of serious professional
misconduct by Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith
and Professor Murch, in relation to the conduct of a
research study involving young children from 1996-98.
Dr Wakefield,
Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch, were at
the relevant times employed by the Royal Free
Hospital School of Medicine with Honorary Clinical
contracts at the Royal Free Hospital.
It is alleged that
the three practitioners were named as Responsible
Consultants on an application made to the Ethical Practices
Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust
(“the ethics committee”) in 1996 to
undertake a research study involving children who
suffered from gastrointestinal symptoms and a rare
behavioural condition called disintegrative disorder. The title of the study was
“A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and
disintegrative disorder following measles/rubella
vaccination”. The Panel will inquire into
allegations that the three practitioners undertook
research during the period 1996-98 without proper ethical
approval,
failed to conduct the research in accordance with the
application submitted to the ethics committee, and
failed to treat the children admitted into the study
in accordance with the terms of the approval given by
the ethics committee. For example, it will be alleged
that some of the children did not qualify for the
study on the basis of their behavioural symptoms.
It is further alleged
that the three practitioners permitted a programme of investigations to be carried out on a number
of children as part of the research study, some of
which were not clinically indicated when the Ethics
Committee had been assured that they were all clinically
indicated. These investigations included colonoscopies and lumbar punctures. It is
alleged that the performance of these investigations
was contrary to the clinical interests of the
children.
The research
undertaken by the three practitioners was
subsequently written up in a paper published in the Lancet in
February 1998 entitled “Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular
Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis and Pervasive
Developmental Disorder in Children”
(“the Lancet paper”).
It is alleged that
the three practitioners inaccurately stated in the
Lancet paper that the investigations reported in it
were approved by the ethics committee.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and
Professor Walker-Smith acted dishonestly and
irresponsibly in failing to disclose in the Lancet
paper the method by which they recruited patients for
inclusion in the research which resulted in a
misleading description of the patient population in
the Lancet paper. It is further alleged that Dr
Wakefield gave a dishonest description of the patient
population to the Medical Research Council.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield and
Professor Walker-Smith administered a purportedly
therapeutic substance to a child for experimental
reasons prior to obtaining information about the
safety of the substance. It is alleged that such
actions were irresponsible and contrary to the
clinical interests of the child.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield was
involved in advising solicitors acting for persons
alleged to have suffered harm by the administration
of the MMR vaccine. It is alleged that Dr
Wakefield’s conduct in relation to research funds obtained from the Legal Aid Board
(“LAB”) was dishonest and misleading. It
will be alleged that Dr Wakefield ought to have
disclosed his funding from the LAB to the Ethics
Committee but did not.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield ordered
investigations on some children as part of the
research carried out at the Royal Free Hospital from
1996-98 without the requisite paediatric
qualifications to do so and in contravention of his
Honorary Consultant appointment.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield failed to
disclose his involvement in the MMR litigation, his receipt of funding from
the LAB and his involvement in a Patent relating to a new vaccine to
the Editor of the Lancet which was contrary to his
duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper.
The Panel will
inquire into allegations that Dr Wakefield acted
unethically and abused his position of trust as a
medical practitioner by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use
for research purposes without ethics committee
approval, in an inappropriate social setting, and
whilst offering financial inducement.
[All links added
by Brian Deer]