Esther Crawley

@dave30th has posted on Prof Crawley’s retirement in his Trial by Error Series:

Trial By Error: Professor Esther Crawley, Bristol University’s Methodologically and Ethically Challenged Pediatrician, Has Retired From Medicine

https://virology.ws/2024/06/12/tria...2O74D8k18Hhl3rihp8OwLgv_zz9fFWXPHcTVx-6RWFexE

One thing that puzzles me is that she has relinquished her right to practice medicine. How usual is it to completely step back from any clinical practice on retirement? I would have thought most new retirees would want to retain this as an option in the short term at least, especially in early retirement.

[added - though I rejoice if Prof Crawley is no longer involve in relation to ME/CFS in any way given the harm she has inflicted, however I do wish her all the best in relation to her personal life.]

 

It is the obvious thing to do unless you want to run private practice. To continue having the right to practice you need to ay GMC fees which may well be £1000 a year now. You will also need to have medical protection insurance cover at maybe £3500 per year and you probably need to continue your College subscriptions ... It's a no brainer.

 

really? If she qualified in 1991? I assumed mid-50s. Might have to correct my post although I said "presumably."

 

If she qualified in 1991 should would be expected to be 58 but if for some reason she completed her medical training late, maybe having started out in another subject should could be up to 3 years older. I think she might well be 58, although I remember her as a registrar in our very early days at the Middlesex Hospital which made me calculate around 60+.

The other thing is that I had thought she had moved to some sort of deanery position so she may have retired from medical practice but still be drawing an academic salary.

 

Also if you retain your licence you also have to engage in the regular appraisals and 5-year revalidations that were introduced just over a decade ago.

Retiring doctors who are not going to practice medicine but who want to teach or enter some other professional non-clinical role sometimes give up their licence but retain their GMC registration.

She hasn't done this, though, she's given up her licence and relinquished her registration. If she's fully retired and definitely not going to return to practice or take up any professional role where maintaining a GMC registration would be advantageous then relinquishing both is the obvious choice to make.

Also you actually have to apply to relinquish your registration; it doesn't just lapse.

Hopefully her reign of error is over.

 

I edited my post just about a minute before you replied, Trish, but I meant insofar as she's able to directly affect the lives of patients - I was thinking of all those "pervasive refusal syndrome" diagnoses, non-recovery leading to spurious FII allegations, and the other very troubling rumours and reports of fearful patients and parents that have been swirling around that clinic for quite a long time.

I hope some will eventually be able to speak out.

 

Indeed and her colleague at the Bath Paediatric Specialist Chronic Fatigue service, Dr Jan Cribb, is also a psychiatrist:

From Dr Cribb's private work website:

https://www.coaching-in-mind.com/jancribb

"I have worked for the NHS as a doctor for over 25 years, and as a part time NHS Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist for 16 years..."

 

I gather, from what a neighbour has told me, that there's quite a bit of work involved in maintaining your registration - demonstrating you've done (clinical) work --- even some actual tests?

 

A very, very wide spectrum

 

Yes, only one of them is a professor of evidence-based medicine.

 

I am from Vulcan, like Mr Spock. I had my ears done a while back.

Garner (in his professional capacity) is from Woof, an interesting planet which has an entirely fixed orientation so that a single year is also a single day - always All Fools' Day. It is said to have very good scuba diving facilities.

 

All hail FND

 

Many consultants are retiring earlier die to tax liabilities on pensions

 

The following information is in the public domain and freely available from Companies House. Crawley was at one point an officer of a registered company. A document in the Filing History recording termination of her appointment as an officer, in 2005, gives her year of birth as 1967.

 

I don't really see much behind the justification that it's because of a series of poor results on studies she was involved in. Many others are pushing strong despite failing just as bad, while a few have been elevated to influential positions on this basis. They're not involved in medical research or health care, they're involved in pushing a political ideology in support of powerful interests.

Poor results on studies they are involved in is the only kind of results seen in biopsychosocial research. Hasn't made any one of them pause for a second. The money is still clearly flowing in. It's cheap anyway, and results clearly don't matter.

Anyway, this is only good news in the sense that future harm will be avoided, but all the harm already done can't be undone.