GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
2
1258 GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL A SESSION of the Medical Disciplinary Committee of the Council opened on May 22,1 under the chairmanship of Lord COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD, the council’s president. ERASURES Mahadeva Sivarajah, registered as of 39, Stroud Green Road, London, N.4, M.B. Ceylon (1948), did not appear but in a letter asked that the hearing, previously adjourned at his request, should take place in his absence. He was charged that during a period commencing in June or July, 1954, and con- tinuing until September, 1961, he improperly associated with Mrs. Dorothy Armstrong and from and after a date in or about September, 1954, he committed adultery with her, and stood in professional relationship with Mrs. Armstrong at the material times. The committee found the respondent guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect and directed the Registrar to erase the name of Mahadeva Sivarajah. This is subject to appeal within twenty-eight days. Henry Augustus Morton Whitby, registered as of 12A, Prince Edward Mansions, London W.2, M.R.C.S. (1924), was charged with infamous conduct in a professional respect in that (1) from January, 1960, onwards he had been director of the " Cancer Prevention Detection Centre ", formerly of 12A, Prince Edward Mansions, London W.2, and now in premises at Paddington Green, London W.2; (2) he had, while director, procured or sanctioned the regular and systematic issue of advertisements, and the employment of canvassers, with a view to: (i) directing the attention of the public to the facilities offered by the centre; (ii) collecting subscriptions or donations from the general public to the funds of the centre; (iii) attracting volunteers for investigation from whom donations or subscriptions might be invited; and (iv) thereby directly or indirectly promoting his own professional advantage and his own financial benefit. The complainant was the Medical Defence Union, repre- sented by Mr. Noel Leigh Taylor, of Messrs. Hempsons, solicitors. Dr. Whitby was represented by Mr. David Stoney Hunter, counsel; and Mr. E. B. McLellan, counsel, held a watching brief for the trustees of the centre. Mr. Taylor said that the Cancer Prevention Detection Centre circulated documents designed to advertise it. In so far as they mentioned Dr. Whitby as the surgical director it followed that they tended to advertise him in that capacity. If the centre was advertising and the purpose was to build up the centre, it must inevitably follow that it would build up the professional importance of Dr. Whitby. Suppose the centre became nationally known, did anyone doubt that Dr. Whitby’s name, as surgical director, would become equally known as an expert in the prevention and detection of cancer ? Evidence was given for the complainant by a woman who received a circular when she contributed to a collecting-box, and by an inquiry agent. In evidence Dr. Whitby said he first became interested in his electrical machine for the detection of cancer in 1936. He went to South Africa and became convinced that valuable use could be made of it. He described the machine and said that with its findings orie could spot people with cancer susceptibility, and with cancer. He found it 90% accurate when checked with biopsy itself and sarcoma. He took six months’ unpaid leave from Stanger Hospital, Durban. He approached his own School-St. Bartholomew’s-the British Empire Cancer Campaign, the Medical Research Council, and other bodies without success. He then conceived the idea of forming his own centre. It took two years to set it up under a charitable trust deed. Since the deed was signed in 1960 he had not engaged in private practice. He had not received or treated anybody as a patient. No person who volunteered to be investigated had been required to pay anything. After signing a consent form, volunteers were investigated by " unorthodox " and " orthodox " tests by a team of doctors. He was still hoping for facilities in connection with a hospital. He had no doubt whatever that the machine had potential. 1. See Lancet, June 1, 1963, p. 1203. Without volunteers it was impossible for him to operate the centre. It was to that end that his name was published in circulars. He used his name on circulars to the medical pro- fession in order to convince them that he was a qualified medical practitioner. He allowed his name to appear on circulars to the public because he was not in private practice and therefore thought he was justified in letting the public know who was running the centre, since he received several letters from the public asking this. At one point he left the name off again to test the effect, and again got letters asking why there was no name on them. Asked by Mr. Hunter: " Is this advertising for the benefit of the centre or yourself?" " Dr. Whitby replied: " For the centre. I never think of myself in connection with it." Mr. Hunter said he had intended to call one of the present and one of the past trustees of the centre, but as a result of what had been said at the hearing they had been advised not to give evidence. Addressing the committee, Mr. Hunter said that the facts alleged were substantially admitted: the only ambiguity was that the word " director " might indicate that Dr. Whitby was in sole charge of the direction of the centre, and the ambiguity in the rest of the charge was in the words " pro- fessional advantage ". A point-a nice one-arose as to whether, in carrying out these activities, Dr. Whitby had crossed or not crossed the borderline which worried and troubled many professional people as to what constituted and what did not constitute advertising. But a number of allegations had been made against Dr. Whitby which would constitute a much more serious charge. These extraneous matters formed no part of the inquiry and could form no sort of foundation for any finding of the committee. His ideas were unorthodox but he was not charged with his theories. The committee found the facts alleged proved to their satisfaction. Mr. Taylor then said that Dr. Whitby had been found guilty by the South African Medical and Dental Council in 1949 on three charges of charging excessive fees from patients and discharged on other counts. He was cautioned and reprimanded. The Committee found Dr. Whitby guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect in relation to the facts found proved and directed the registrar to erase from the Register, the name of Henry Augustus Morton Whitby. This is subject to appeal within twenty-eight days.* * CASES CONCLUDED The Registrar was not directed to erase the name of James McRobert Parker, registered as of 79, Tweedsmuir Road, Glasgow, S.W.2, M.B. Glasg. (1934), who appeared for judg- ment postponed for one year following convictions involving driving or being in charge of a motorcar when under the influence of drink. When the committee resumed consideration of the case of Robert Brown Watson, adjourned after it was found that the original complainant had not been informed that Dr. Watson was coming for postponed judgment, Mr. G. J. K. Widgery, solicitor to the Council, read a statement from the com- plainant’s solicitors. The complainant was Dr. Joseph Wilson Totten, and Dr. Watson had been found guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect by canvassing certain of Dr. Totten’s patients. The statement from Dr. Totten’s solicitors referred to a petition to release Dr. Watson from the under- taking he had given to leave Dumbarton and practise else- where. There was a statutory declaration by a patient that he was asked to sign a petition on Dr. Watson’s behalf. Mr. E. B. McLellan, instructed on behalf of the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland, said Dr. Watson had honoured his undertaking as thoroughly as he could by leaving the country and going to Australia. Within a very reasonable time Dr. Watson honoured his undertaking. The Registrar was not directed to erase Dr. Watson’s name from the Register. *Sir Dennis Browne and Mr. Patrick Clarkson, as co-presidents of the British Section of the International College of Surgeons, write to rebut Dr. Morton Whitby’s claim before the committee to be a fellow of the college.-ED. L.
Transcript of GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL
1258
GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCILA SESSION of the Medical Disciplinary Committee of
the Council opened on May 22,1 under the chairmanshipof Lord COHEN OF BIRKENHEAD, the council’s president.
ERASURES
Mahadeva Sivarajah, registered as of 39, Stroud Green
Road, London, N.4, M.B. Ceylon (1948), did not appear but ina letter asked that the hearing, previously adjourned at hisrequest, should take place in his absence. He was charged thatduring a period commencing in June or July, 1954, and con-tinuing until September, 1961, he improperly associated withMrs. Dorothy Armstrong and from and after a date in or aboutSeptember, 1954, he committed adultery with her, and stoodin professional relationship with Mrs. Armstrong at thematerial times. The committee found the respondent guilty ofinfamous conduct in a professional respect and directed theRegistrar to erase the name of Mahadeva Sivarajah. This is
subject to appeal within twenty-eight days.Henry Augustus Morton Whitby, registered as of 12A, Prince
Edward Mansions, London W.2, M.R.C.S. (1924), was chargedwith infamous conduct in a professional respect in that (1)from January, 1960, onwards he had been director of the" Cancer Prevention Detection Centre ", formerly of 12A,Prince Edward Mansions, London W.2, and now in premisesat Paddington Green, London W.2; (2) he had, while director,procured or sanctioned the regular and systematic issue ofadvertisements, and the employment of canvassers, with a
view to: (i) directing the attention of the public to the facilitiesoffered by the centre; (ii) collecting subscriptions or donationsfrom the general public to the funds of the centre; (iii)attracting volunteers for investigation from whom donationsor subscriptions might be invited; and (iv) thereby directlyor indirectly promoting his own professional advantage andhis own financial benefit.The complainant was the Medical Defence Union, repre-
sented by Mr. Noel Leigh Taylor, of Messrs. Hempsons,solicitors. Dr. Whitby was represented by Mr. David StoneyHunter, counsel; and Mr. E. B. McLellan, counsel, held awatching brief for the trustees of the centre.Mr. Taylor said that the Cancer Prevention Detection
Centre circulated documents designed to advertise it. In sofar as they mentioned Dr. Whitby as the surgical director itfollowed that they tended to advertise him in that capacity.If the centre was advertising and the purpose was to build upthe centre, it must inevitably follow that it would build up theprofessional importance of Dr. Whitby. Suppose the centrebecame nationally known, did anyone doubt that Dr. Whitby’sname, as surgical director, would become equally known as anexpert in the prevention and detection of cancer ?Evidence was given for the complainant by a woman who
received a circular when she contributed to a collecting-box,and by an inquiry agent.
In evidence Dr. Whitby said he first became interested inhis electrical machine for the detection of cancer in 1936. Hewent to South Africa and became convinced that valuable usecould be made of it. He described the machine and said thatwith its findings orie could spot people with cancer susceptibility,and with cancer. He found it 90% accurate when checkedwith biopsy itself and sarcoma. He took six months’ unpaidleave from Stanger Hospital, Durban. He approached his ownSchool-St. Bartholomew’s-the British Empire Cancer
Campaign, the Medical Research Council, and other bodieswithout success. He then conceived the idea of forming hisown centre. It took two years to set it up under a charitabletrust deed. Since the deed was signed in 1960 he had notengaged in private practice. He had not received or treatedanybody as a patient. No person who volunteered to be
investigated had been required to pay anything. After signinga consent form, volunteers were investigated by " unorthodox "and " orthodox " tests by a team of doctors. He was still
hoping for facilities in connection with a hospital. He had nodoubt whatever that the machine had potential.
1. See Lancet, June 1, 1963, p. 1203.
Without volunteers it was impossible for him to operatethe centre. It was to that end that his name was published incirculars. He used his name on circulars to the medical pro-fession in order to convince them that he was a qualifiedmedical practitioner. He allowed his name to appear on
circulars to the public because he was not in private practiceand therefore thought he was justified in letting the publicknow who was running the centre, since he received severalletters from the public asking this. At one point he left thename off again to test the effect, and again got letters askingwhy there was no name on them. Asked by Mr. Hunter: " Isthis advertising for the benefit of the centre or yourself?" "
Dr. Whitby replied: " For the centre. I never think of myselfin connection with it."Mr. Hunter said he had intended to call one of the present
and one of the past trustees of the centre, but as a result ofwhat had been said at the hearing they had been advised notto give evidence.
Addressing the committee, Mr. Hunter said that the factsalleged were substantially admitted: the only ambiguity wasthat the word " director " might indicate that Dr. Whitbywas in sole charge of the direction of the centre, and the
ambiguity in the rest of the charge was in the words " pro-fessional advantage ". A point-a nice one-arose as to
whether, in carrying out these activities, Dr. Whitby hadcrossed or not crossed the borderline which worried andtroubled many professional people as to what constituted andwhat did not constitute advertising. But a number ofallegations had been made against Dr. Whitby which wouldconstitute a much more serious charge. These extraneous
matters formed no part of the inquiry and could form no sortof foundation for any finding of the committee. His ideas wereunorthodox but he was not charged with his theories.The committee found the facts alleged proved to their
satisfaction. Mr. Taylor then said that Dr. Whitby had beenfound guilty by the South African Medical and Dental Councilin 1949 on three charges of charging excessive fees from
patients and discharged on other counts. He was cautionedand reprimanded.The Committee found Dr. Whitby guilty of infamous
conduct in a professional respect in relation to the facts foundproved and directed the registrar to erase from the Register,the name of Henry Augustus Morton Whitby. This is subjectto appeal within twenty-eight days.* *
CASES CONCLUDED
The Registrar was not directed to erase the name of JamesMcRobert Parker, registered as of 79, Tweedsmuir Road,Glasgow, S.W.2, M.B. Glasg. (1934), who appeared for judg-ment postponed for one year following convictions involvingdriving or being in charge of a motorcar when under theinfluence of drink.When the committee resumed consideration of the case of
Robert Brown Watson, adjourned after it was found that theoriginal complainant had not been informed that Dr. Watsonwas coming for postponed judgment, Mr. G. J. K. Widgery,solicitor to the Council, read a statement from the com-plainant’s solicitors. The complainant was Dr. Joseph WilsonTotten, and Dr. Watson had been found guilty of infamousconduct in a professional respect by canvassing certain of Dr.Totten’s patients. The statement from Dr. Totten’s solicitorsreferred to a petition to release Dr. Watson from the under-taking he had given to leave Dumbarton and practise else-where. There was a statutory declaration by a patient that hewas asked to sign a petition on Dr. Watson’s behalf. Mr.E. B. McLellan, instructed on behalf of the Medical andDental Defence Union of Scotland, said Dr. Watson hadhonoured his undertaking as thoroughly as he could by leavingthe country and going to Australia. Within a very reasonabletime Dr. Watson honoured his undertaking. The Registrarwas not directed to erase Dr. Watson’s name from the Register.*Sir Dennis Browne and Mr. Patrick Clarkson, as co-presidents of the
British Section of the International College of Surgeons, write torebut Dr. Morton Whitby’s claim before the committee to be a fellowof the college.-ED. L.
1259
In view of the information which had been received con-
cerning Hugh Rinn, registered as of 324, Dudley Road, Bir-mingham, 18, M.B. Glasg. (1923), the case was concluded.He had been fined E150 with the alternative of six months’
imprisonment for being an accessory before the fact and usingan instrument to procure a miscarriage.The committee also did not direct the erasure of the name of
Stanislaw 7erry Rydlewski, registered as of 14, Agnes Road,Manchester, 16, M.B. Polish School of Medicine (1943).Judgment had been postponed for one year as a result of aconviction of persistently importuning for an immoral purposein a public place.The name of William Grant Maule, registered as of c/o
Coutts & Co., 440, Strand, London, W.C.2, M.B. Dubl. (1926),was not erased. Judgment had been postponed for one yearfollowing convictions relating to dangerous drugs.Gerard Joseph McCann, registered as of Laurel Bank,
Woolton Road, Liverpool, 16, L.R.C.P.E. (1949), who hadoriginally had judgment postponed for two years, laterextended to three years, following drink convictions, did nothave his name erased.Neither was the name erased of Ian Mills Hall, registered as
of Wood way, Carbone Hill, Cuffley, Herts, M.B. Lond. (1938),against whom judgment had been postponed for one year, alsofollowing offences connected with drink.The case against Michael Flavin, registered as of 207, King’s
Road, Reading, Berks, M.B. N.U.I. (1934), with two convic-tions for driving while under the influence of drink, was con-cluded in view of the satisfactory evidence as to his conduct.
JUDGMENT POSTPONED
John Corboy, registered as of Wimpole, High Road, Pitsea,Essex, M.B. N.U.I. (1939), had a conviction in 1956 of drivinga motorcar when under the influence of drink, and dangerousdriving, when he was fined E50 and 20 guineas costs and dis-qualified for five years, two convictions for failing to payNational Insurance contributions for which he was fined S5and El in 1958 and 1960, and on March 21, 1962, of assaultinga police constable and causing wilful damage when he wasfined E10 and ordered to pay B9 Is. for compensation and E4 4s.for costs. The committee postponed judgment for one year.George Wilkinson McNichol, registered as of 105, Munro
Road, Jordanhill, Glasgow, W.3, M.B. Glasg. (1958), admittedconvictions in 1959 for driving a motorcar when under theinfluence of drink and in 1963 of driving a motorcar whenunder the influence of drugs. On the first occasion at Glasgowsheriff court he was fined E40 or sixty days’ imprisonmentand disqualified for one year. On the second, he was fined E75at Airdrie sheriff court or three months’ imprisonment andwas disqualified for six years. Judgment was postponed forone year, until May, 1964.
FURTHER POSTPONEMENT
The committee were not satisfied that the evidence pro-duced would warrant their discharging Maurice FinbarrCahill, registered as of 368, Lees Road, Oldham, Lancs, M.B.N.U.I. (1943), who appeared for postponed judgment follow-ing convictions for driving and being in charge of a motorcarwhile under the influence of drink. It postponed judgmentfor a further twelve months until May, 1964.Richard Maurice Dooley, registered as of 74, Eglinton Road,
Donnybrook, Dublin, M.B. Dubl. (1945), originally hadjudgment postponed in 1959 after three convictions involvingdrink. In 1960, 1961, and 1962 the committee was not justifiedin discharging the case. He was now not present and wasstated to be detained under the Mental Health Act in a hospitalat Abergavenny. Judgment was postponed for a further year.
Florence Berchmans Lawlor, registered as of 35, Belsize ParkGardens, London, N.W.3, M.B. N.U.I. (1936), appeared forpostponed judgment. He had been convicted of being incharge of a car while under the influence of drink and ofunlawfully obtaining drugs by false pretences. The committeedetermined to postpone judgment for a further twelve months.Roy Wilfrid Downie, registered as of 88, Comely Bank
Avenue, Edinburgh, 4, M.B. Edin. (1950), was not present but
was represented by Mr. E. J. Burden, solicitor. Judgment hadbeen postponed for one year and then for six months after twoconvictions of unlawfully procuring dangerous drugs. Thecommittee postponed judgment for a further twelve months,until May, 1964.
INTERIM APPEARANCE
The committee was satisfied with the information as to
Neil Budge, registered as of Mendip Hospital, Wells, Somerset,M.B. Aberd. (1942), who made an interim appearance, and con-firmed its decision to postpone judgment until May, 1964.The committee made the same decision over Hugh McNicholl,
registered as of 165, Mottingham Road, London, S.E.9, M.B.N.U.I. (1933).
Further cases which could not be considered will beheard at an extra sitting in July-the second extra sittingwhich the committee will have held this year.
Medicine and the Law
Duties of Chest PhysicianIN March, 1951, the Tuberculosis Authority established
under the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Northern IrelandAct, 1946, appointed a physician as whole-time con-sultant in tuberculosis and chest diseases at named
hospitals and clinics on the terms and conditions set outin an agreement and a Memorandum annexed theretoissued by the Ministry of Health and headed NationalHealth Service Terms and Conditions of Service of
Hospital, Medical and Dental Staff (England and Wales).In 1953, after an alarming increase of cases of
pulmonary tuberculosis among persons recently joiningthe Royal Ulster Constabulary, an arrangement was
approved by the Ministry that recruits should be
X-rayed; and the plaintiff physician was asked to readand report on those X-rays. He informally agreed to doso; and a discussion ensued as to whether charges shouldbe made for the services so rendered; but ultimately theAuthority decided that as from April 1, 1954, suchexaminations should be carried out free of charge andinformed the Ministry that steps had been taken to
assign that work as part of the duties of the Authority’smedical staff. The Tuberculosis Act of 1946 providesthat " It shall be the duty of the Authority to makeprovison for ... the discovery of cases of tuberculosis;... the prevention of tuberculosis ..."The plaintiff physician brought an action claiming a
declaration that the Authority was not entitled under theservice agreement to assign to him the duty of examiningcandidates for the Royal Ulster Constabulary for thepurpose of ascertaining their physical fitness for the
service; and a further declaration that he was entitled toreceive or retain charges for examining such candidatesfor that purpose. Lord MACDERMOTT, the Lord ChiefJustice of Northern Ireland, dismissed the action, but onappeal a majority of the Court of Appeal granted the reliefclaimed. The Authority (now Northern Ireland HospitalsAuthority) appealed to the House of Lords.Lord JENKINS said that the duties and powers of the
Authority under the Tuberculosis Act of 1946 were as wideas they could be. Moreover, in exercise of those powers andduties the Authority had entered into the service agreementwith the consultant and by clause 2(a) of that agreement itwas provided that " the employee " should perform suchduties as might be assigned to him " by the Authority for thepurpose of effectually discharging " the obligations imposedby the Act on the Authority. That width of expression wasfatal to the physician’s case. His Lordship failed to see how
