Seyedi v General Medical Council, Court of Appeal - Privy Council, October 03, 2003,  UKPC 67
|Resolution Date:||October 03, 2003|
|Issuing Organization:||Privy Council|
|Actores:||Seyedi v General Medical Council|
Seyedi v General Medical Council (GMC)  UKPC 67 (03 October 2003)
Privy Council Appeal No. 15 of 2003
Dr. Parviz Seyedi Appellant
The General Medical Council Respondent
THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE
OF THE GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
REASONS FOR REPORT OF THE LORDS OF THE
JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF THE
24th July 2003, Delivered the 3rd October 2003
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hope of Craighead
Sir Andrew Leggatt
Sir Philip Otton
[Delivered by Sir Philip Otton]
At the conclusion of the hearing on 24th July 2003, their Lordships agreed humbly to advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed and that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and stated that they would give their reasons later. This they now do.
This is an appeal pursuant to section 40(1) of the Medical Act 1983 (as amended) from the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the respondent Council (``PCC'') made on Wednesday 29 January 2003 that the appellant was guilty of serious professional misconduct and the imposition of conditions upon him for a period of one year.
The appellant was born in 1942 and graduated as a doctor in Tehran. He came to practice medicine in this country in the 1970's and following a number of hospital appointments was employed in 1983 as the Medical Officer at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Windsor.
The patient concerned (``Mr A'') was 56 years old when, in June 2000 he died of a drug overdose at his home. His life had been dramatically altered by the first Gulf War and as a result of an accident he had become dependent upon pain killers. The appellant first met this patient in the 1980's when he treated him for a respiratory infection, but did not see him again until April 2000. The appellant was then practising as a private GP from 1, Albany Place, Egham, Surrey.
Between the 27th and 29th January 2003 the PCC conducted an enquiry into a charge of serious professional misconduct arising out of his prescribing addictive pain-killing drugs to the patient who subsequently died as a result of an overdose of those drugs.
At the hearing the appellant faced seven heads of charge. He admitted heads 1-6 and these were found proved:
``Head (1) Between 1 April 2000 and 27 June 2000 you were working as a private general practitioner in Egham Surrey - admitted and found proved;
Head (2) - During this period Mr A, who had a long history of drug addiction, consulted you on a number of occasions complaining of pain following a whiplash injury - admitted and found proved;
Head (3a) - On or about 8 April 2000 you were consulted by Mr A and you prescribed to him 100 Dihydrocodeine (30mg) tablets and a number of Lorazepam tablets (2.5mg) - admitted and found proved;
Head (3b) - On or about 15 April 2000 you were consulted by Mr A and you prescribed to him 100 Dihydrocodeine (30mg) tablets, 100 Lorazepam (2.5 mg) tablets and 60 Palfium tablets (10mg) - admitted and proved;
Head (3c) - On or about 29 April 2000 you were consulted by Mr A and you prescribed to him 100 Dihydrocodeine (30mg) tablets, 100 Lorazepam tablets (2.5mg) and 60 Palfium tablets (10mg) - admitted and found proved;
Head (3d) - On a date unknown between 1 April 2000 and 27 June 2000 you were consulted by Mr A and you prescribed to him 100 Lorazepam (2.5mg) tablets and 60 Palfium (10mg) tablets - admitted and found proved;
Head (3e) - On 24 June 2000 you were consulted by Mr A and you prescribed to him 60 Lorazepam (2.5 mg) tablets and 60 Palfium (10mg) tablets - admitted;
Head (3f) - Also on 24 June 2000, because the pharmacist had no 10mg tablets in stock, you substituted a prescription for 60 Palfium tablets (10mg) in paragraph 3(e) above by issuing two prescriptions for 60 Palfium (5mg) tablets - admitted and proved;
Head (4) - On or about 27 June 2000 Mr A died after taking a major dose of Dextromoramide (Palfium) - admitted and proved;
Head (5) - In prescribing the drugs listed in paragraph 3 above to Mr A
(a) You did not take any steps to check the veracity of what you were told by Mr A - admitted and proved;
(b) You did not take any steps to establish whether or not Mr A had an NHS practitioner treating and prescribing to him - admitted and found proved;
(c) You had inadequate knowledge of this patient's medical...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL