A FORMER Dundee doctor has been refused an appeal against the decision of his professional body which places restrictions on his medical practice in the UK, writes Marjory Inglis, health reporter.

Dr James Swanney, who currently lives and works in Canada, previously worked as a Tayside Police surgeon.

He worked in Canada for many years but returned to Scotland after coming under scrutiny for his treatment of two patients with a history of drug abuse. Both died in 2000.

In late 2006 he was acquitted of criminal negligence after a six-week trial in Canada. He had been accused of causing a patient’s death by giving her heroin substitute methadone.

After a hearing of the UK General Medical Council’s fitness to practise panel in April last year, Dr Swanney was told he would have to undergo remedial training at his own expense and work under supervision if he was to continue his medical career.

That decision followed a 12-day hearing in Manchester when Dr Swanney appeared before the panel.

They found proved allegations of serious professional misconduct against Dr Swanney, who qualified as a doctor in 1969.

In a long list of conditions to be fulfilled if he was to continue his medical career, Dr Swanney was told to seek retraining that should address in particular the prescribing of opiates, pain management and note keeping. He appealed to the High Court in Scotland to have the GMC decision quashed.

He said that at the time of the complaints against him in Canada, he was not registered with the GMC and that it had no jurisdiction.

The High Court ruled that the law authorised the professional conduct committee to take action in respect of serious professional misconduct, whether or not the person involved was registered in the UK.

They took the view that the committee was “given authority by Parliament to explore an issue of serious professional misconduct in relation to actions which may have occurred while the subject of the inquiry was not a registered person in the UK. In our opinion, there can be absolutely no doubt about that matter.”

Further, they stated that while the law was “silent” on whether its provisions could relate to conduct which took place outside the United Kingdom, the judges agreed with a submission by counsel for the GMC who argued the consequences of not considering such conduct would be undesirable.

“It appears to us to be inconceivable that the legislation would not permit inquiry into the conduct of a registered person, with a view to seeing whether serious professional misconduct had occurred, simply because that conduct had occurred in some other state,” the judgment stated.

“If the contrary view were accepted, it would mean that a practitioner whose conduct could be regarded as serious professional misconduct in some other jurisdiction could come to the United Kingdom and practice medicine here with impunity, it might be to the danger of the public.”

They found such a result would undermine the objective of the respondents, enshrined in law, which provides that the main objective of the respondents is to “protect, promote and maintain the health and safety of the public.”