Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Not only the GMC but many others including those who were directly affected by Gilbert’s misconduct would be “disappointed” that he was not struck off the register [1].
One of the grounds advanced on appeal was “the Tribunal has simply failed adequately to reflect the gravity of Mr. Gilbert's conduct” (27)[2]. Despite the High Court confirming racist misconduct too, on two separate occasions [1] and at least one amounting to racial harassment per s26, Equality Act 2010 [3], it’s questionable whether the real gravity of multiple acts of misconduct is reflected by extension of suspension by mere four months.
It would be hard to properly argue against the view that Gilbert’s proven sexual and racial misconduct had brought the medical profession into disrepute. In Bolton v The Law Society [4], it was held, “A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires” (15) and “The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is a part of the price” (16)[4].
It appears, in the High Court’s judgment [2], the above well-established principles in Bolton have not been directly referred to or cited. The judgment gives the impression that the issue of erasure has not been sufficiently addressed and a four-month extension of suspension is too lenient given the overall misconduct of Gilbert. Hence, there seems to be good grounds for the GMC and PSA to consider an appeal to the Court of Appeal
Surgeon who sexually harassed colleagues has suspension extended to 12 months; merits an appeal to the Court of Appeal?
Dear Editor
Not only the GMC but many others including those who were directly affected by Gilbert’s misconduct would be “disappointed” that he was not struck off the register [1].
One of the grounds advanced on appeal was “the Tribunal has simply failed adequately to reflect the gravity of Mr. Gilbert's conduct” (27)[2]. Despite the High Court confirming racist misconduct too, on two separate occasions [1] and at least one amounting to racial harassment per s26, Equality Act 2010 [3], it’s questionable whether the real gravity of multiple acts of misconduct is reflected by extension of suspension by mere four months.
It would be hard to properly argue against the view that Gilbert’s proven sexual and racial misconduct had brought the medical profession into disrepute. In Bolton v The Law Society [4], it was held, “A profession's most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence which that inspires” (15) and “The reputation of the profession is more important than the fortunes of any individual member. Membership of a profession brings many benefits, but that is a part of the price” (16)[4].
It appears, in the High Court’s judgment [2], the above well-established principles in Bolton have not been directly referred to or cited. The judgment gives the impression that the issue of erasure has not been sufficiently addressed and a four-month extension of suspension is too lenient given the overall misconduct of Gilbert. Hence, there seems to be good grounds for the GMC and PSA to consider an appeal to the Court of Appeal
References
[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r698
[2] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/802.html
[3] https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1881/rr-4
[4] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1993/32.html
Competing interests: Have submitted responses regrading this topic previously; see text and reference.