Please see below an email and attached letter from GMC CEO Niall Dickson. It is a response to the open letter sent to the GMC about Dr Day's case signed by 1000 doctors.
Mr Dickson contacted Dr Day 30 March 2016: “you may know a group of doctors in training have signed an open letter to the GMC about your case and the issue of whistleblowing protection for doctors in training… I thought you may find it helpful to see our response to the open letter which we plan to send today.”
Please also see Dr Day's letter to the GMC that replies to their response to the open letter sent on 31 March 2016.
On 1 April 2016 the GMC contacted Dr Day again: “I would like to clarify that we have not yet published our response to the open letter to us from 1,000 doctors. As Niall indicated when sharing with you the draft of our response earlier this week… we will hold off on issuing any response to the open letter and we would be grateful if you do not therefore publish the draft response shared with you earlier this week.”
In response Dr Day wrote: “I will consider your request in respect of publication of the letter. I am of the view we should publish both letters in the public interest. The GMC position expressed in the proposed letter is potentially very damaging to me and in places misleading. The public and the profession have a right to hear both sides of the story…
When you consider the GMC has authored a damaging letter and expressed a clear intention to send it to over 1000 of my colleagues yesterday afternoon, your response has come very late.
I have no intention of making promises I cannot keep.”
We have decided to publish the letter for the following reasons: 1. 54kd is about shining a light on certain areas of the healthcare establishment in the interests of other healthcare staff in a way that serves the interests of patients.
2. The GMC letter is a PDF, signed by the GMC CEO. Mr Dickson does not use the word draft in his email and states an intention to send the letter that day. It follows that the letter cannot be sensibly described as a draft.
3. We would say the letter from Niall Dickson appears to be an attempt to damage Dr Day’s appeal and employment tribunal litigation. We believe it to be misleading in several places and take the view that Dr Day clearly shows this to be the case in his reply.
4. The letter misleads junior doctors on the reality of the recent EAT judgment and how protected they actually are if they are damaged on account of something legitimate that they say.