[A lack of understanding of the rulings by disciplinary committees].
The fact that certain rulings of disciplinary committees evoked much criticism among colleagues is distressing in itself, but such criticism should be interpreted with due caution, as different explanations are conceivable. For instance, the published abstract of the committee ruling may have gaps with regard to facts and motivation. It is also possible that the committee has good grounds to accentuate the professional standards, which understandably may meet some resistance among the medical profession. Finally, it is theoretically possible that the disciplinary tribunal is not fully informed about relevant professional standards and current practice. It is precisely to minimize such possible communication breakdowns that disciplinary powers have largely been entrusted to persons from the medical profession.
Hubben
J H
JH
Katholieke Universiteit, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Nijmegen.
D017408:Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D009426:Netherlands; D018024:Peer Review, Health Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D011366:Professional Review Organizations / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000592:standards*; D011367:Professional Staff Committees / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000458:organization & administration*; D011639:Public Opinion; D012955:Societies, Medical
Onbegrip over tuchtrechtelijke beslissingen.