Our fellow alleged medical bloggers Dr Zorro (retired) and Jobbing Doctor (soon to retire) have both posted on the latest edicts from the Government's Medical Council (GMC) on their advice regarding social media with some very, very naughty grunt words which we suspect most doctors will echo in the same way that the GMC got it seriously wrong with their plans as the Party's thought police to regulate doctors' private lives. You can see the results of their alleged "consultation" here when most people with brains thought it was a step too far.
We suspect this advice will be the first of a series of small moves to reinstate this failed policy in a subversive way or as the Witch Doctor calls it creep (to their political masters).
Have the GMC made a slight omission and are they in fact acting in a very discriminating fashion towards certain doctors? We appreciate that totalitarian control freaks who consider themselves above all laws both British and European never make mistakes but a glance at some old GP magazines and BMJs reveals that some doctors dare to write anonymously or use pseudonyms in these journals.
Is therefore according to GMC non-logic an article in paper format allowed to be published anonymously while the exact same content published on social media has to have the author identified if they are a doctor?
Of course paper is always easier to burn than the internet so maybe the GMC feels it has more control here as it can send the stasi round with some matches to a warehouse far more easily than have to observe the legal niceties that would have to be followed for phone and internet tracing/hacking and buildings do sometime burn down spontaneously, mi lud. Perhaps they will invoke anti terror legislation to track down those they do not like as there is a clear threat in their "guidance"?
The local press is full of such anonymous criticism of local authorities and their policies but such activity is alright if you are a professional journalist. Journalists do not need any regulation. They have their own high codes of moral conduct and clearly feel that doctors need to be regulated while they need no such regulation for they are all honourable men.
Extend the process further and will doctors when they go out in public have to wear yellow idents with the word doctor and their name written on it so that if they express an opinion in private/public for example with a group of friends it can be "trusted"?
Will our purchase and consumption of 8 pints of Old Scroty Grudge followed by the uttering of "All middle aged bald men are fags" or "If you want decent child protection call the Pope" or "I believe in abortion up to the age of 140 years" be construed as "may reasonably be taken to represent the views of the profession widely"? The GMC clearly feel that social media represents the profession perhaps more widely than it does?
What about any doctor registered with the GMC who is resisting a corrupt regime and treats those injured by it who then posts about their involvement anonymously to bring injustice to a wider audience? Is the GMC either by the doctor following their guidance or by them tracking them down (allegedly mi lud) grassing them up to their oppressors?
As a result all posts appearing in this blog are fictitious. Any inference that the word Doc is a direct, or indirect, reference to a doctor, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
We love freedom of the press.
Praise be to the Party for allowing freedom of thought and expression anonymously to all unless you are a doctor. The thin end of what we suspect will be a very long and increasingly broader wedge if they get away with it.