Dr Mohammad MF Siddiqui

In my case, a witness of fact, professional witness from Bristol Children Hospital, Mr M Woodward, was produced by GMC. This Pediatric urologist didn't know how to perform revision circumcision by plastibell method. He described wrong way of the procedure and misinformed the panel. Statement of the mother of child, from Bath, belied his professional ability. That child received inaccurate, misleading and insufficient advice from this children hospital pediatric surgical team. Mr Woodward also acknowledged that a particular advice was helpful to preclude complication and hospital operation. Mr W also failed to disclose conflict of interest to the panel members. This was another example of his dishonesty in my opinion. When I informed the panel members about this conflict of interest, unfortunately, chair of the panel, Mr Donnelly, a bias and a crooked person, told a lie that Mr W was only a professional witness and therefore conflict of interest doesn't apply to him. He was ign...

GMC had accused me of not having Indemnity Insurance for providing circumcision in private practice.   None of my patients had ever complained for lack of Indemnity Insurance.   Indemnity insurance is not a statutory requirement. Against personal beliefs and values, one should not be forced to acquire Indemnity Insurance particularly when it's not a statutory requirement.

There were so many irregularities in my case on part of GMC and MPTS, that it will require many pages to write a full account.   GMC and CQC, care quality commission, provided cover to each other on their own wrongdoings in my case. These bodies refused to disclose requested information in the MPTS hearings.   GMC was consulted before setting up mobile circumcision practice. GMC advisor on phone gave wrong and inadequate information. The minutes of such phone calls were not disclosed by GMC despite multiple requests. Similarly CQC also gave wrong advice on phone and refused to disclose minutes of phone conversation. CQC in one email also advised erroneously, contrary to CQC's position in the hearing. Following is the excerpt of such an email (October 2013) correspondence with CQC:   I wrote, " Details of the enquiry : I provide mobile circumcision service for mainly muslim population primarily for children at their homes. I have received co...

The key expert had worked with me in the same department as a colleague in one of the NHS hospitals. There was conflict of interest on various grounds. GMC and its Kangaroo tribunal were informed of this. Despite, the expert was invited to write expert reports on other patients. Against the rules, GMC refused to inform MPTS about this conflict. The same expert never performed ring method circumcision for more than 20 years but strangely he gave expert opinion on the procedure and its related dynamics erroneously. The same expert gave wrong opinion on the consenting procedure. Complying with the GMC rules, written consent was taken from both the parents after full disclosure. The expert's opinion on hand washing was against the published guidelines by WHO (World Health Organisation) and NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence). To substantiate his opinion he failed to give citation from world literature.

I want to highlight another example of police double standards, in my opinion. I am sure everyone is aware of a non Muslim doctor in Nottingham being in press and social media regards to a circumcision. He under took a circumcision on a boy without consenting his mother. Police initially turned down mother's complaint that her child had been circumcised with out her consent. According to the law of country, the doctor must had consent from both the parents before performing religious or cultural circumcision. This was an obvious illegal circumcision and contravention of the law. But seemingly because, in my opinion, the doctor was a non muslim, no further action was taken by police. On the contrary, Muslim circumcision practitioner had been arrested by police despite taking a written consent by both the parents. Police allegation in the case of a Muslim practitioner was that consent was not explicit and therefore circumcision was a grievous bodily harm (GBH). This is another examp...

General Medical Council (GMC) and its kangaroo court Medical Professional Tribunal Service (MPTS) are joke with the justice, in my opinion. I was removed from the medical register by MPTS about 3 years ago. Before the tribunal, I wanted to voluntarily surrender my registration but, instead, I was temporarily deregistered by GMC. I was asked to appear before MPTS. GMC and MPTS conducted the case in a bias way. The GMC barrister and MPTS legal representative used carrot and stick methods to stop me producing important evidence before MPTS members. This act of GMC and MPTS legal teams was criminal. In my future blogs I will write more on my case.