The scene
During an anatomy lesson, a first-year dental student took out his mobile phone and openly snapped a picture of the cadaver he had been examining. The body had a particularly interesting dental condition which he wanted to recall and study later. His friends asked him to forward the image to them, and as soon as the lesson was over, he did so.
The following week, the student received a letter from his dental school informing him that he had violated the strict rules about taking photographs in the dissecting room and had been reported to the dental school’s student fitness to practise committee. Realising immediately that his action would have serious repercussions, the student called the DDU.
DDU advice
The student had failed to follow two of the dental school’s rules – bringing a mobile phone into the dissection room (DR) and taking a photograph of a cadaver. The rules were clearly posted on the DR walls and written into the school’s handbook.
The DDU adviser explained that the school is governed by the Human Tissue Act 2004 Code of Practice 4 (Anatomy) which requires schools to put in place systems to prevent the inappropriate use of images.
Unfortunately, the matter went before the dental school’s student fitness to practise panel. The DDU helped the student prepare for the hearing, recommending that he get together personal and academic testimonials, as well as assisting him to write a report and statement on what he had done. All the testimonials attested to his diligence and trustworthiness, as well as his commitment to a career in dentistry.
In particular, the student showed considerable insight into and remorse for his actions. From the moment he received the letter, he made no attempt to deny or cover up what he had done; in fact, he was at pains to apologise at every opportunity.
The panel accepted that the student’s career would be hampered by severe sanctions and took into account all the supportive statements from his dental school and family. Their decision was that in this case the issues related to professional standards rather than patient safety and agreed that the student should be issued with a formal warning.
The GDC guidance on warnings states that they ’allow the education provider to indicate to a student that any given behaviour represents a departure from the standards expected and should not be repeated. They are a formal response in the interests of maintaining professional values’. Warnings are appropriate when the student has behaved unprofessionally and caused concern but falls short of impaired fitness to practise.
The student was made aware that the warning would remain on his record and could be taken into consideration should any further issues arise which called his fitness to practise into question. He was also advised that he would have to declare it in his application for GDC registration.
These are fictional cases compiled from actual cases in the MDU’s files.
This page was correct at publication on 01/08/2012. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.