I've had an interesting Twitter conversation about it with various people, but I wouldn't call it commentary. The critical issues that emerged were:
1) whether the criminal conviction was wrong because systemic problems weren't properly accounted for...
1) whether the criminal conviction was wrong because systemic problems weren't properly accounted for...
2) whether the expert who gave evidence in the criminal proceedings was wrong to say that she made basic errors that no competent doctor should have made (I think on the basis that any competent doctor would have made them in those particular circs)....
3) whether she was scapegoated/why the consultant in charge wasn't pursued (and whether the regulator could/should have looked at that)
4) whether since the High Court held that a conviction of this seriousness doesn't mean you must strike off, the systemic problems should have been accepted - and whether that necessarily means going behind the criminal findings
5) and whether public confidence in the profession is upheld more by saying doctors convicted of this sort of offence cannot be allowed to practise, or by taking account of the difficult circumstances in which doctors work and supporting them
And you will no doubt already have noticed that there is a massive gulf between the (apparently majority) medical view that it could happen to any doctor and the (apparently majority) patient view that a doctor convicted of such an offence could never be trusted
