Cases relating to the medical council : for the use of members of the General Medical Council only / (edited by Fredk, Willis Farrer.).
- Farrer, Frederick Willis.
- Date:
- 1897
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Cases relating to the medical council : for the use of members of the General Medical Council only / (edited by Fredk, Willis Farrer.). Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.
27/86 page 19
![.with respect to the grounds for erasing a name specified in sect. 13, but was required to adjudicate independently. This view is strengthened by an examination of the provisions in the last clauses of sects. 13 and 14, where it is ]3i'0vided that the medical authority shall be bound by the decision of the Council, but there is no provision that the Council shall be bound by the decision of the medical authority. The Dentists Act, 1878, contains no similar provision to that of the Medical Act of 1858, which emjDOwers the Council, ' if they see fit,' to erase from the Eegister the name of a practitioner struck off.the list of the medical authority. The Dentists Act appears to be carefully framed to restrict the right of the General Council to interfere with registered dental practitioners in the practice of their pro- fession to the cases where there are the grave reasons for dis- qualification which are specified in sect. 13. The Council appealed from this decision. The Appeal Court consisted of Lord Esher, Master of the Eolls, and Lords Justices Lindley and Lopes, whose judgment was delivered in August, 1887, as follows :— Lord Esher. In this case the applicant for the mandamus was, in 1878, a licentiate in dental siu'geiy of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, and in respect of that qualification he was put on the Register established by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 33. Since then, in consequence of a breach by him of the under- taking he entered into with the authority by whom he was licensed, such authority revoked his licence. For that reason, and for that alone, the General Medical Council have erased his name from the Register. They have not exercised, or affected to exercise, any jurisdiction under sects. 13 and 15 of the Act, but as a mere consequence of the fact that he is no longer a Hcentiate of the Royal CoUege of Surgeons in Ireland, they have treated him as no longer entitled to be on the Register. The question whether they were right in so doing depends upon the true construction of the 41 & 42 Yict. c. 33. The 6th section of that Act provides that '' any person who'' (among other things) is a Hcentiate in dental surgery, or dentistry of any of the medical authorities, ' shall be entitled to be registered under tliis Act.' It seems to me that that section is dealing with the moment of time when the person is to be put on the Register. c 2](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21508124_0027.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
