Should we believe all we read in the Newspapers?

Just thought I would throw this into the pot, if anyone has any comments. Its from a UK newspaper article this week. Maybe or maybe not some truth in it?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/927-doctors-keep-jobs-despite-1508052

While I am all for goodness and light in the real world, 98% of the so called crimes don't affect their ability to practice medicine.

This seems to be a British article I believe? While no offense is meant, isn't it generally accepted that some British publications do have a tendency to present things in quite alarming terms and do sometimes tend to exaggerate when it comes to conjuring up images of crime, depravity and the general decline of society in general.

Compare these statistics with those in other countries and you'll maybe have a better take on this.

It is so easy to generalize and scare people. Especially when specific cases are generalized.

So in response to the question: I would not in general believe everything in the newspapers. Find out who the publishers are, what other kinds of articles they publish and if possible their political affiliation. This will help get a clearer picture of how they approach their editorial content.

Yes it is a typical "sleaze" British paper. However there were other links from other papers too, I just randomly chose that one. As for political affilation they are all biased one way or another.

Agree with the comments from both of you, thanks for contributing to the post.

It seems to me this article infuses much excrement into what may very well be a legitimate issue to analyze. We have a different system here in the US but our own fair share of ethics problems. Here is it more an issue of malpractice, the insurance required, and the lunacy of it all. Because the public here feels entitled to some extent to sue...and in many instances fraudulently, we have enabled a system of insurance to pay off the leeches which in turn may very well hide and protect certain physicians who should be booted. It's become a matter of big business vs patient welfare.

Back to my first point - Aside from the sex crimes - punishable as a crime in addition to removal of license here in the US - I find the laundry list of offenses that include such things as "driving without paying tax/insurance" to be totally absurd. Journalistic fodder like this simply negates the credibility of any real issue that may very well be out there.

sarah

I wouldn't exactly say that the UK newspaper concerned, the Daily Mirror, was a sleazy publication, though it is often inclined to sensationalise.

However, the article to which Elizabeth2010 refers was culled from responsible sources - a campaign group 'Patients Concern' and from General Medical Council figures and was not merely anecdotal.

Just three days ago the following appeared in news reports, directly from the regulatory body, the General Medical Council. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20869560 and this is an extract.

"In the last five years, 63% of doctors either struck off or suspended by the General Medical Council (GMC) were trained outside the UK.

Yet they make up only 36% of doctors on the medical register."

Doubtless only some of those struck off or suspended were for unprofessional behaviour of the kind that the Mirror article refers to but the general public consensus, rightly or wrongly, is that foreign doctors are more likely to offend against patients directly, often in a sexual manner and, again rightly or wrongly, that they will be from Middle Eastern counties or other countries with repressed regimes.

In the matter of inadequate or incorrect treatment though it is a serious matter for concern that overseas training is inadequate - even in the matter of being able to understand the English language, leading to frequent reports of errors in prescribing for instance.

I have some empathy with Sarahgyn about the relevance of 'driving without paying tax/insurance', to the issue of whether they are doctors or not. However it remains a fact that irresponsible behaviour does not behove someone in such a responsible, and well paid, position. Move that argument onto those convicted of driving drunk (DUI), 296, Driving dangerously, 182, Driving under the influence of drugs, possession of controlled drugs and trafficking in drugs, total 21, in the Daily Mirror's Medical Roll of Shame, and it assumes proportions amounting to some 52% (499) of those disciplined, who were apparently sworn to the preservation of life etc.