A consultant paediatrician who disagreed with the parents of a girl with chronic fatigue syndrome about her treatment and obtained her medical records without their consent has been cleared of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council. The case resumed last week, having been adjourned in June (29 June, p 1539).
Christopher Cheetham, consultant paediatrician at Wycombe General Hospital, continued to involve himself in the case of the 12 year old girl after her parents, named only as Mr and Mrs B, made it clear they no longer wanted him to do so.
Dr Harvey Marcovitch, editor of Archives of Disease in Childhood, said the case had caused concern among paediatricians about their child protection role. “A lot of paediatricians have been contacting the college [the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health], saying they have a terrible dilemma when families won’t cooperate with them in knowing how far they’re allowed to go in spreading information.”
He said the college’s president, Professor David Hall, was seeking a meeting with the GMC president, Professor Graeme Catto, to discuss the issue.
The girl, now 17, was confined to bed for two years. Social services convened two child protection case conferences but decided she was not at risk.
Dr Cheetham recommended an inpatient programme of psychotherapy and physiotherapy. Mr and Mrs B disagreed, believing her illness to be organic, and told him by letter that they no longer wanted him involved in their daughter’s care.
The family’s GP called in Dr Nigel Speight, a consultant paediatrician from Durham with a special interest in chronic fatigue syndrome. He agreed with Mr and Mrs B that their daughter should be treated at home under the care of her GP.
Dr Cheetham sought to involve social services and continued to insist, in letters to Dr Speight and others, that the girl was being deprived of proper treatment.
Dr Cheetham’s counsel argued that the Children Act 1989, which provides for intervention when a child is thought to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, justified Dr Cheetham’s actions.
Taking into account the circumstances of the girl’s condition and management as known to Dr Cheetham at the time and his “integrity, expertise, and reputation as a senior paediatrician,” the GMC’s professional conduct committee “could not feel sure” that he had no reasonable cause to suspect significant harm. He could not, therefore, be said to have no right to intervene.
The committee said the Bs were “intelligent, loving, and devoted parents” who were entitled to have the treatment of their choice for their child. But that did not nullify the right of a doctor with legitimate concerns for his former patient.
You can read the rest of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124209/
Source: Dyer C. Doctor accused of “interfering” in girl’s treatment is cleared by GMC. BMJ. 2002 Sep 28;325(7366):673. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124209/ (Full article)