I thought you all may find this e-mail i got today interesting.robs court case has been reviewed by a government watchdog committee,and this is their opinion on the findings
Dear Mrs Read

We have now considered the decision of the GDC�s Professional Conduct Committee in accordance with our standard procedure under Section 29 of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002.
I should point out that before we can exercise our discretion to refer a decision to Court under Section 29 we have to be satisfied that the decision is unduly lenient and that it is necessary to refer the decision for the protection of members of the public.
We have given this case detailed consideration in accordance with our usual process. We analysed the transcript of the hearing and the exhibits available to the Committee, as well as the information which you provided. We noted your concerns with considerable interest; in particular your comments about early diagnosis and the guidelines for referral of a non-healing ulcer,Mr Dhamecha�s statement regarding his perception of Robin�s ulcer at the October appointments, and the panel�s conclusions in relation to the evidence given by you and Mr Wheeler regarding the date Mr Wheeler saw Robin�s ulcer.
However, having taken account of all of the circumstances of the case, we have decided not to refer this decision to the High Court under Section 29, as we considered that the decision would not meet the test of undue lenience which has been set out by the Court. In this respect I would refer you to the Court of Appeal judgment on 20 October 2004 in the cases of Ruscillo and Truscott (ref [2004] EWCA Civ 1356). The test applied by the Court (and which therefore should be considered by CHRE) is whether the decision as to sanction was �one which a disciplinary tribunal, having regard to the relevant facts and to the object of the disciplinary proceedings, could reasonably have imposed�. We also need to consider whether �having regard to the material facts, the decision reached has due regard for the safety of the public and the
reputation of the profession�. Ultimately for the Court to allow an appeal by CHRE, it must decide that the decision as to sanction �is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the practitioner�s conduct and the interests of the public.�
When considering such decisions we have to bear in mind issues such as the practitioner�s previous record and references from colleagues and patients, although we note that you feel such issues were not relevant to the findings in this case; however the courts view this very differently and it would be highly unlikely for us to be successful in appealing a case where so many references and testimonials have been submitted and where there is no evidence of further failings in the registrant�s practice. We also have to place weight on the fact that, despite often very tragic outcomes in cases such as this, the incidents related solely to one patient and do not indicate a pattern of substandard practice which may suggest that patients would remain at risk if the practitioner were allowed to continue practising. This is important when taking into consideration that sanctions imposed at such hearings are not intended to be punitive but are imposed in order to protect the public, and as stated above, we do not consider the sanction in this case fails to do so. We realise, however, that these issues may do little to allay your concerns regarding Mr Dhamecha and the very sad death of your husband.

So...rob was a one off.Just his tough luck eh?