Neel Kothari explores the potential consequences of online posts and questions whether the GDC’s approach to social media regulation is fair and logical.
Over the past few years, many of us will have come across cases of dental professionals who have got themselves into trouble for what they have said on social media. A recurrent theme has emerged where content considered offensive is reported to the General Dental Council (GDC), which was asked to pass judgement over whether the registrant has breached their professional standards.
As far as I can tell there is limited guidance on precisely what can or cannot be said, other than the GDC stating that registrants should not ‘instigate or take part in any form of cyber bullying, intimidation, or the use of offensive language online.’ Further, they state, ‘If you share any such content posted by someone else, you can still be held responsible even though you did not create it.’
At face value this sounds eminently sensible, but when we scratch below the surface it’s clear that there is a high level of subjectivity over what exactly constitutes cyber bullying and intimidation, as well as a genuine uncertainty over what someone else may find offensive.
Facing consequences
Let’s take for example the case of two dental professionals. The first is Gordon Pate, who in 2018 was initially reported to the police (who concluded no law had been broken) and then the GDC, which determined that his fitness to practise was impaired and suspended him for four months.
For those unfamiliar with his case, Pate talked about ‘sewers of towns cleansed’. He also said (if we) ‘continue with this appeasing woolly approach and soon we will see Sharia Law recognised, a majority of Muslim MPs and say goodbye to the country.’
Now let’s look at the second case. This is the case of an unnamed dental nurse who was suspended in 2023 for eight months for sharing and liking posts that were anti-immigration, specifically about the Islamic community in an offensive racial context.
Without going into detail, both cases clearly have the potential to cause offence, and those of you reading this article by now will probably have arrived at some form of moral judgement as to whether it was appropriate for the GDC to take action. However, neither case broke UK law, which begs the question: why did the GDC suspend them?
GDC response
Well, in the Pate case, Mathew Hill from the GDC tells Dentistry: ‘When someone becomes a healthcare professional, they join a group of people in whom the public places its trust’ and that this ‘comes with both privileges and important obligations’.
Mr Hill goes on to further say that ‘the obligations arise from the need to ensure that individual patients can benefit from safe, effective care delivered in circumstances of dignity and respect. For the public – as a whole and as individual communities – it means they can confidently place their trust in the dental profession.’
Broadly speaking I agree, but it doesn’t logically follow that someone who holds awful but lawful views would jeopardise patient care or that their treatment would in any way be affected. I’m not seeking to justify the individual posts, but rather question the GDC’s conclusion that offensive posts are prima facie evidence that patients may not be treated with dignity and respect.
Of course, it’s a possibility, but is this enough to meet the threshold warranting suspensions? And does this conflict with UK law?
Where is the line?
Let’s now explore the case of the GP Dr Sam White. Dr White criticised NHS advice and government rules concerning the wearing of masks, the reliability of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) testing, and vaccine efficacy openly on social media.
The General Medical Council’s (GMC) interim orders tribunal (IOT) imposed an order of interim conditions restricting Dr White’s ability to post his opinions and obliging him to remove his existing posts on social media platforms.
Following a High Court appeal, this interim order was quashed on the grounds that his freedom of expression had been breached.
Again, I’m not commenting on his views, but rather the difficulties in registrants knowing precisely where the line is. We, as registrants, have surprisingly little information over what we can or cannot say on social media, other than being told we could potentially face GDC sanctions if we cause offence.
This is a difficult standard to say the least, because almost everyone will be offended by something.
‘Absurd’
Finally, as a seasoned dentist of almost 20 years, I simply cannot understand how the GDC links the punishment to the crime.
In the second case of the unnamed nurse who posted and liked anti-immigration posts, she was subject to an eight-month suspension, which is far more than many of the cases I have come across where patient harm was proven.
This is absurd and makes no sense to me whatsoever. I would encourage you all search for her case, read it and let me know what you think.
Here is what one dentist told Dentistry following her suspension.
So, what exactly can dentists say on social media? Put simply, I’m still not sure.
