"Spent conviction rules top student out of medical course..."

[shahana]

Originally Posted by agneishd

one can argue it both ways - if he once did something illegal knowingly, who's to say he may not again? imperial didn't want to take a risk in this case... but good for manchester for giving him another chance

i agree with you to an extent, but then you can also argue that just because someone have a clean past, this does not predispose them to a life where they do not do anything unethical.
but yes i agree with you about his conscious choice.

[LightElf7]

I agree with the argument that not everyone is "perfect" and may have his/her unethical moments, and this guy was just poor enough to get caught.

But from what I could perceive, he did not seem to show much regret or feelings of remorse over what he did on the article I read.

He constantly blabbered about him growing up in a "violent" environment and such he had no choice and so on, but that looks too much like putting all the fault to outside factors and not actually feeling guilt himself.
Also, from what I read, he didnt mention it beforehand. It only showed up after the CRB check was done wasnt it? Why was he trying to hide it in the first place?

Not to say that he is a bad guy, people do change, but I do understand the uni's point of view. He is not the only applicant receiving high grades and such, and one would rather choose someone of equal or similar academic ability without criminal background than someone who does. But good that Manchester is giving him a second chance.

[BGG]

There's a degree of naivety in this thread about the way the media works which is really quite striking.

Judging the person involved on the basis of the quote the journalist has chosen/modified/invented to make the story work best is low level.

[shahana]

it would be better to know everything he said....but i guess this is the wrong place for me to argue whether Imperial was correct or not...

[kotoreru]

He failed an FtP interview (because he probably didn't show any remorse), that's all that happened. He didn't cover up his criminal record etc. People have some pretty funny ideas about what happened here.

Also, how many of us have done something illegal without knowing it? Exactly, you don't know and it doesn't make you a worse person for it. Does having a clean record mean you're less likely than him to do something in future? I could argue either way.

[Spencer Wells]

The point is that medical students and doctors are held to a higher standard. They are often in a position where they could take advantage of children and vulnerable adults, and if you have a caution or conviction, medical schools have every right to deny entry and the GMC does too. Their primary role is to protect patients.

[kotoreru]

The term "overkill" comes to mind, Spencer, that's all the other half of the argument is. This bloke is not more likely to stab your granny while checking her sore throat just because he may or may not have stolen something when he was 15.

Higher standards, yes, but people are people. The standards are only ever going to get so high - it's just that some of us get cuffed by the law, and some don't.

[elz]

yea but the med schools all say you have to have a clean record, so why should they let this guy in just because hes not white. it might not be fair to not let u in based on something that happend when u were young, but then they should change the policy for everyone, not just one person. at present thats the rules and so i think its fair.
at 15 while everyone was smoking and taking drugs, i was quite responsible, people make choices and 15 isnt that young.

[NorthernLight]

Originally Posted by kotoreru

The term "overkill" comes to mind, Spencer, that's all the other half of the argument is. This bloke is not more likely to stab your granny while checking her sore throat just because he may or may not have stolen something when he was 15.

Nobody expects him to stab anybody. What seems to be the issue is the extent to which he seems to take responsibility (or not) for his past mistakes, and his probity.
Clearly in his FtP interview, Imperial felt he didn't demonstrate either of these adequately.
The reason he had an FtP interview is precisely because he neglected to mention an event except when it was about to come to light in a CRB check. That's to do with probity.
The apparent reason he failed his FtP interview seems to be (if his newspaper articles and interviews are anything to go by, i.e HIS OWN WORDS) that the reason he was in trouble with the police is to do with the area he lived in, his bad group of friends, in fact a whole host of factors none of which were anything to do with him. That's about not taking responsibility.
Doctors aren't expected to be perfect. They are however expected to take responsibility for their actions and learn from their mistakes. My guess is the lack of these qualities led to Imperial withdrawing their offer.

There are probably a fair number of people out there who might make better students and doctors than a lot of us. Medical Schools' selection process isn't perfect. But Imperial had every right to make the decision they did, just as other institutions have every right to offer the guy a place.

[Singh.Simran]

We're not discussing the rights of the schools and the GMC to do it, we're discussing whether they were right TO do it...

I would say yes to the former and no to the latter, for reasons previously discussed. They need to protect patients, but banning people for reasons no worse than 90% of accepted folks are undoubtedly guilty of is....naive.