tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post1017862548342899353..comments2024-01-01T00:45:41.758+00:00Comments on Wishful thinking in medical education: GMC guidance- doctors online should reveal their identityAnne Marie Cunninghamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-39850444232161622022013-05-22T14:02:46.785+01:002013-05-22T14:02:46.785+01:00Hi NHS_GP, I'm writing a piece on this issue f...Hi NHS_GP, I'm writing a piece on this issue for the Orthopaedic Product News and would love to get your (anonymous) perspective on the situation?Hadley Middletonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03420148166737506204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-65261607190402396452013-04-15T17:02:32.891+01:002013-04-15T17:02:32.891+01:00I use my real name online, which is my choice, but...I use my real name online, which is my choice, but I think that should remain my choice and that the choice to be pseudonymous should remain other peoples' choice. I've been pondering on it:<br /><br />http://wanderingmedic.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/doctors-and-the-right-to-privacy/Beth Routledgehttp://wanderingmedic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-26088693583430741612013-04-10T19:06:16.351+01:002013-04-10T19:06:16.351+01:00Such a fascinating range of views and suggestions ...Such a fascinating range of views and suggestions about the new guidance and how it will apply to currently blogging and tweeting anonymous doctors. It's somewhat reassuring to see the clarifications that the GMC have put forward, but I suspect the issue is unlikely to fade so quickly. <br />I've always tweeted under my own name and identifying as being a doctor essentially with the awareness of Twitter being public domain. It was never a particularly conscious decision, but I felt that I would probably not be saying anything terribly controversial anyway! I find this makes it easier to establish the level and content that I would post, comment on and retweet; however maintain vigilance of this is pretty difficult. I would need to download the archive of the 100 or so tweets I've made to determine what the cumulative disclosure of e.g. personal views, location and the like are out there, and it is something that I think everyone on line forgets and inevitably loses track of. But I certainly modify twitter content compared to what I might share on Facebook, where I do not say that I am a doctor (although the majority of my friends are already aware of this fact anyway, adding to the perplexity of the guidance). <br />I find the GMC guidance ultimately confusing and I suspect there will be considerable debate if and when hearings are brought against people about the rights to a private life and correspondence. I would hope that common sense will prevail in the end as we all accumulate on-line lives and identities, but this is yet to be worked out in society in general and will take time to percolate through into the older generations and the formal regulatory structures that we have - e.g. Judicial system and professional bodies. Chris Pellhttp://twitter.com/egosyntonicallynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-28017860857158139372013-04-07T15:40:11.068+01:002013-04-07T15:40:11.068+01:00You may be thinking of a previous version of the G...You may be thinking of a previous version of the GMC, where the profession elected members. That is no longer the case. The new GMC is a different creature, and it is a creature of government, albeit on a leash of some length. Adrian Midgleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201348867263167871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-76129686245483262422013-04-02T12:57:25.447+01:002013-04-02T12:57:25.447+01:00Firstly I am not a doctor and have a number of rol...Firstly I am not a doctor and have a number of roles and interests within my local community. My main and only source of income is from Novartis and I work in Global R&D. <br />Anne Marie, I have found this debate enthralling. I am keen that many actors in the health conversation are moving to a more open collaborative culture which will be of benefit to patients, and there may a paucity of evidence to show this right now.<br />One of the aspects to add to this discussion is the network effects of twitter and other social media. There is clearly a different component to the odd anonymous tweet about some health care issue vs the lengthy broadcasts (spam to some other people) of anonymous tweets to the interactive participative anonymous tweeters with a broad following and clearly adding meaning and matter to the health conversation.<br />Hence the need to see anonymous tweeters not as sole atoms in Brownian motion of twitter but rather how their “tribe” interact and hence produce a dominant narrative. I am unaware of any research as to how anonymous tweets are followed / responded to and how this may change the course of the discussion. Clearly this network effect could be used to a positive (for patient care) end or even negative end which I hope any professional group would be able to say is inappropriate<br /><br /><br />Mike Baldwinhttp://about.me/mikey3982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-82954002222030604002013-04-01T22:23:17.769+01:002013-04-01T22:23:17.769+01:00What about doctors who act anonymously outside soc...What about doctors who act anonymously outside social media? Why is it fair that you have to give your name if you post something on social media, if you can publish an anonymous review article in a traditional journal? Or, as a journal reviewer, provide anonymous feedback to authors submitting articles for publication?<br /><br />And what about other activities undertaken anonymously such as forum moderation?<br /><br />See http://peterenglish.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-gmc-and-guidance-for-anonymous.html#TradMedia Peter M B Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17032739079250190441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-6944629349359639172013-04-01T20:57:19.305+01:002013-04-01T20:57:19.305+01:00Yes, Dr Idgie also wrote on his blog that privacy ...Yes, Dr Idgie also wrote on his blog that privacy from peers was more important that privacy from patients. Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-92173036875465211182013-04-01T20:41:13.154+01:002013-04-01T20:41:13.154+01:00With respect to proportionality, a colleague has p...With respect to proportionality, a colleague has pointed out this gem from human rights legislation:<br /><br />"When taking decisions that may affect any of the qualified rights, a public authority must interfere with the right as little as possible, only going as far as is necessary to achieve the desired aim." <br /><br />Source: <br />http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/HRO/moj_guide_regulators_inspectorates.pdf<br />Peter M B Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17032739079250190441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-73287128723730642532013-04-01T17:46:18.312+01:002013-04-01T17:46:18.312+01:00I am trying to be less noticeable to my Foundation...I am trying to be less noticeable to my Foundation Trust. Nothing to do with patients. It is sad isn't it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-37584796211463954172013-04-01T15:07:18.562+01:002013-04-01T15:07:18.562+01:00Huge issues here - and a very good set of comments...Huge issues here - and a very good set of comments. The use of anonymity has a great many advantages, many of which have been alluded to in the comments so far. I have a couple of things to add.<br /><br />1) One of the big questions I have to ask is why it's even necessary to ask for people to give their real names? If people misbehave, it IS possible to lift the veil of anonymity, both legally and practically. Norwich Pharmacal orders can be (and have been) used to get subscriber information. What's more, most forms of social media have strong self-policing systems - and if a 'doctor' is abusing their position on social media, they will get the treatment that their misbehaviour deserves.<br /><br />2) Secondly, and more importantly, many (and perhaps most) people aren't able to (and shouldn't be asked to) separate their 'professional' lives from their personal lives. I tweet and blog in all capacities - I'm an academic lawyer, but I'm also a football fan, a husband, a father, someone with strong political views etc etc. I don't compartmentalise my life that clearly - and if I tried to, I'd probably fail. That means that if I was bound my similar guidance, it wouldn't just be my 'professional' tweets and blogs that were covered, but all of them.<br /><br />Anonymity and pseudonymity are a key factor in real freedom of speech - they stop the chill that can come from potential reprisals from authorities and enemies. They allow people to give out crucial information and valuable insight that would otherwise be lost. For doctors, that could be particularly important, especially with the profession under threat from the NHS 'reforms' and so forth. Those of us who are not in the medical profession would lose just as much - personally, I've found tweets and blogs from doctors, nurses, social workers, probation officers, police officers etc of great interest and value. I don't want to lose that - and enforcing identification could have that kind of effect. The 'Nightjack' saga is a cautionary tale here.<br /><br />I agree in most other ways with the GMC guidance - and it wouldn't take much to 'tweak' what they say about anonymity, tilting it back to 'advice' that applies with a LOT of exceptions, into something good. It's a shame they haven't done so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-91904135298310685042013-04-01T14:57:42.855+01:002013-04-01T14:57:42.855+01:00I've seen and commented on http://surgicalopin...I've seen and commented on http://surgicalopinion.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/twitter-wars-on-anonymity-of-doctors-on.html if that's the one you mean, Anne Marie.Peter M B Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17032739079250190441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-40461570844319379042013-04-01T14:25:33.919+01:002013-04-01T14:25:33.919+01:00Thanks for commenting Chris. I'm not sure see ...Thanks for commenting Chris. I'm not sure see the need for a register of pseudonymous identities.<br /><br />AMAnne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-37350976402987245492013-04-01T14:18:12.842+01:002013-04-01T14:18:12.842+01:00"It is hard to imagine that this is what the ..."It is hard to imagine that this is what the GMC intended" - indeed.<br /><br />Have you seen <a href="http://surgicalopinion.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/twitter-wars-on-anonymity-of-doctors-on.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a> by @drhwoo?<br /><br />Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-79513733296868437452013-04-01T14:14:12.626+01:002013-04-01T14:14:12.626+01:00As I said of course you are right that the GMC sho...As I said of course you are right that the GMC should be concerned about doctors being unprofessional or not disclosing conflicts of interest. <br /><br />I don't think that this guidance asks people to declare they are a doctor when it is irrelevant. And I don't think it stops doctors having relationships online which are independent of being doctors.<br /><br />I have read doctors saying that they write using a pseudonym so that they do not have to argue with patients about their taste in music. In a few weeks I will be seeing Efterklang. I might well tweet when there. Will I worry that a patient mentions this to me the next morning? No. I do not share publicly what I mind addressing with patients, students, and colleagues or the rest of the public. But in my experience, my taste in music is not of very much interest to others, and especially not to patients who have a whole lot more on their minds.<br /><br />If other doctors want to use a pseudonym to stop the risk of these conversations then so be it. It is up to the GMC to clarify their guidance but I would doubt if they have an issue with it either.<br /><br />People often want to keep parts of their life private from others. That is very sensible and their right. <br /><br />Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-61271023355795862642013-04-01T11:42:21.138+01:002013-04-01T11:42:21.138+01:00"Do you interpret the GMC guidance as saying ..."Do you interpret the GMC guidance as saying that you shouldn't talk about knitting or poetry? Or do you, as other doctors have said, feel that this is something that you don't want to reveal to patients? Would having a pseudonymous account make that easier for you?"<br /><br />The point is that if you didn't want your patients to know that it is you tweeting or blogging about knitting or poetry, you might choose to do this anonymously; but if your blog ever mentioned that you were are doctor, you would be in breach of GMP guidelines, and "your registration may be at risk" as a result.<br /><br />It is hard to imagine that this is what the GMC intended; it looks like badly worded, ill-thought-out, rushed-through guidelines. <br /><br />I doubt that many of us who object to the GMC's wording really object to its intentions (unless rather paranoid-sounding - but not implausible - concerns are true: that the GMC is acting as an agent of the state, working to control the dangerously knowledgeable professionals who are the state's strongest opponents).<br /><br />What most of us would like to see is a reversion to the original wording - which probably says what the GMC really intended.Peter M B Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17032739079250190441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-66394328529974396972013-04-01T11:27:16.294+01:002013-04-01T11:27:16.294+01:00If there is no harm done by not revealing oneself ... If there is no harm done by not revealing oneself to be a doctor, it should be up to the doctor to decide when they want to be named or not. <br /><br />It's also not about what I want to 'reveal' or be showing how I'm 'being human' to patients. It's about being able to be a doctor and also to have relationships which are independent of that fact. Why can't I 'happen' to be a doctor in many part of my life, rather than being The Doctor? It's absurd to think that I should somehow declare myself a doctor when it's irrelevant or when my behaviour doesn't give cause for concern. <br /><br />I don't think this is muddled; I think the GMC are muddled. <br />Like I said <br />the anonymous doctor is not, by itself, a problem. <br />There are plenty of doctors acting in their own name who the GMC should be concerned about; the Venn diagram here should not be one where concerns are divided into anonymous or not, but professional or not, or undeclared interests or not. <br /><br /><br />margaretmcchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604271448780127679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-78118851569947256072013-04-01T09:48:52.933+01:002013-04-01T09:48:52.933+01:00Hi Anne
Sorry to be slow joining this discussion ...Hi Anne<br /><br />Sorry to be slow joining this discussion - I've had a few technical issues and have taken some time to formulate my thoughts on this.<br /><br />I think that Margaret McCartney hits the nail on the head. Though most of the discussion has been about anonymity, the key issues here are professionalism and accountability. I can understand why many doctors would wish to be anonymous; I have chosen to tweet in my own (slightly unusual) name and try to choose my words very carefully - I may still come to regret this at some point in the future. It will be a great shame if the 'anonymity' guidance from the GMC drives large numbers of doctors away from social media. The vast majority of anonymous doctors are clearly able to self-regulate and uphold the same high professional standards as they maintain in their ‘identified’ lives; unfortunately there is a small minority who are failing to do this.<br /><br />There is an increasing number of Facebook sites on which anonymous ‘doctors’ (and other healthcare professionals) post regular comments identified only by their speciality or grade. Many of the comments are humorous or satirical and they will often stir up interesting and useful debate. However on occasions their posts have been unprofessional, abusive and disrespectful to other healthcare professionals, other medical specialities, and certain patient groups. <br /><br />Such comments may be vented at moments of private frustration, behind closed doors, or in the confines of the doctors' Mess - but Social Media is not the Doctors' Mess. Doctors currently still hold an influential position in society; views expressed in a public forum may have unintended – and potentially serious - consequences, if the humour, irony or satire is not appreciated.<br /><br />Of course we cannot be certain that these individuals are doctors, and some may be 'groups' rather than individuals. However there needs to be accountability for those registered healthcare practitioners whose professional status is revealed, and it is hard to see how accountability can be assured without identification.<br /><br />The current guidance remains ambiguous – ‘identified by name’ could be interpreted in a number of ways. One doctor has expressed concern that she may fall foul of these regulations by tweeting in her married name – instead of her maiden name which she uses in her professional life. Those doctors with common names would remain relatively difficult to identify, and verification of identities will be extremely complex to police. <br /><br />Maybe the GMC should consider maintaining a confidential register of anonymous identities, accessible in the case of a complaint but otherwise providing protection to those who wish their names to remain hidden? For a small fee, perhaps….?<br />Chris Rosevearehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05961556185881793162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-28904221943853454932013-04-01T02:08:36.892+01:002013-04-01T02:08:36.892+01:00Many people are worried that the Medical Registrar...Many people are worried that the Medical Registrar may fall foul of this guidance. Like yourself, I sometimes feel uncomfortable with what is posted. However I recognise that most of the activity on these pages does not take place under a pseudonym, as most of the doctors liking and commenting are using their real names.<br /><br />I have learnt a lot from the discussion. Thank you for posting. Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-57993763818778111192013-04-01T02:02:15.062+01:002013-04-01T02:02:15.062+01:00Hello Diana,
I know some doctors who have shared ...Hello Diana,<br /><br />I know some doctors who have shared publicly that they are living with mental illness. I don't think you are saying that this is always wrong but I would like to state clearly that I think that the choice of disclosure is up to the doctor.<br /><br /><br />Thank you again<br /><br />Anne Marie<br />Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-2672528701824638482013-03-31T23:32:02.020+01:002013-03-31T23:32:02.020+01:00Hi
I think that both Margaret and mellojonny are s...Hi<br />I think that both Margaret and mellojonny are spot on. Obviously none of us are advocating tweeting or blogging about our patients; anonymously or otherwise. That would clearly breach every professional rule there is.<br />Jonny refers to mental health and rightly cites tweeters such as @sectioned_ and others, some known to be doctors and others undisclosed. It is easier tho still taking big personal risks to tweet openly as a doctor with significant mental health issues if you are senior, securely employed, and confident about your diagnosis. All of those apply to me, and as I am now in academia in a different city from that in which I had patients there is no risk of being in a therapeutic role with a patient who suddenly discovers that I am tweeting about my bipolar disorder. I firmly believe that such discovery could be damaging to a therapeutic relationship. This is nothing to do with thinking that doctors are perfect, or that patients should think that their doctors do not get ill. Imagine if I were to discover now, via social media, that my psychiatrist had schizophrenia. It would shift the ground of our 12y relationship dramatically. There are times when planned disclosure is appropriate, but this requires senior and experienced doctors and carefully selected patients.<br />I can see every reason why trainees and newly appointed consultants with personal illness, especially mental illness, should wish to tweet anonymously, and indeed I would argue that they are fulfilling the duties of a good doctor by doing so. Honest tweeting about one's own experience of illness can help, inform, and educate people that you might never meet.diana brighousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11535440096542396335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-89608092547034977462013-03-31T22:56:48.795+01:002013-03-31T22:56:48.795+01:00Hi Margaret,
You blog and tweet in your own name....Hi Margaret,<br /><br />You blog and tweet in your own name. Do you interpret the GMC guidance as saying that you shouldn't talk about knitting or poetry? Or do you, as other doctors have said, feel that this is something that you don't want to reveal to patients? Would having a pseudonymous account make that easier for you?<br /><br />It seems we have a bit of muddled thinking about showing this human side of medicine. People think it is important but feel awkward doing it in their own name. <br /><br />AM<br /><br />PS Your comments about COI are spot-on. Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-67337429968089064112013-03-31T18:21:52.000+01:002013-03-31T18:21:52.000+01:00thanks for this debate Anne Marie
I feel that we ...thanks for this debate Anne Marie<br /><br />I feel that we are losing our way. <br /><br />The GMC should have enough to do with doctors who, for example, promote their own evidence free/lacking interventions to people, or who don't disclose their financial incentives for promoting commercial interests. There are doctors who will cheerfully recommend, say, vaginal cosmetic surgery to young women without telling them that they are normal; there are doctors who allow pharmaceutical companies not to publish their research, doctors who have published research on patients who don't exist. There are so many real problems that it's hard to understand why the GMC are so worried about 'anonymous' doctors online. <br /><br />Say I want to write about being ill, or knitting, or writing poetry, or living in Glasgow, or a family issue, or a holiday; I can't stop being a doctor for any of those things. Being a doctor influences the rest of my life. We need to move away from the god-like paternalistic idea of The Doctor and start talking about margaret who is also a doctor. <br /><br />This does not excuse doctors from going online to be racist, or homophobic, or potentially breach confidentiality - it shouldn't mean that live tweeting a days' work is ever a good idea , see this piece here <br />http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f54?ijkey=DVioWQm1I2eITA6&keytype=ref<br />but disallowing anonymous accounts and shutting down free speech is potentially dangerous. <br /><br />There are dozens of anonymous online folk I follow and learn from. The division of concern shouldn't be between anonymous and non anonymous online doctors. It should be between doctors with undeclared conflicts of interests and doctors without, or be between doctors who act professionally and doctors who don't. The GMC should be concentrating their guidance and resources to sort this out, and leave the rest alone. <br />margaretmcchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16604271448780127679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-52799287268623449412013-03-31T16:25:06.758+01:002013-03-31T16:25:06.758+01:00Dear Anne,
Thank you for opening up what clearly h...Dear Anne,<br />Thank you for opening up what clearly has been fantastic source of debate. Personally, have had no qualms about using my own name as never needed anonymity to use any of the social media forums I use. Even on facebook, I am myself- but perhaps with a limited circle with privacy settings. Having said that issues such as whistle blowing etc are important but my personal view is "each to their own". There are however examples when black humour, jest simply crosses the line- and I suspect is easy to do when one sits behind the shield of anonymity.<br />Point in case: look at this link: https://www.facebook.com/medicalreg?fref=ts especially one on Mar 12. Black humour? Poor taste? Funny? Outrageous? Its exactly here where it all gets murky- I suspect whoever the contributor is (is he or she a doctor?) would hesitate doing so under their own name.<br /><br />Another one? Read responses to my bit in hospitalDr. http://www.hospitaldr.co.uk/blogs/partha-kar/real-accountability-would-root-out-the-skivers#comments<br /><br />Easy to snipe from behind anonymity? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just the other side to the debate which also highlights the importance on non encroachment of personal life, the ability to raise issues anonymously<br /><br />The debate will continue- but as a guidance, not a diktat,in my opinion it isn't a bad one.<br /><br />Regards<br /><br />Partha KarPartha Karnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-47118127905889974502013-03-31T13:07:58.150+01:002013-03-31T13:07:58.150+01:00Jonathon Tomlinson aka @mellojonny
I joined twitte...Jonathon Tomlinson aka @mellojonny<br />I joined twitter in 2009 anonymously. Like most people I had to be on it for a little while to figure out how it worked. I chose mellojonny because Lance Armstrong had just opened a bike shop with the same name, and though I wasn't an Amstrong fan (by any means) I was racing regularly and thought I'd get in with mellojonny before he did. <br /><br />Initially I wanted (like most people) to use twitter to broadcast my concerns about what was happening to the NHS, Labour were setting it up as a gift for the Tories, ripe for privatisation. I wanted to use twitter as a tool for awareness raising and sedition. Fortunately for me I was secure in a GP partnership and lacked any political ambition so I had (or so I thought) nothing to fear from speaking my mind. I decided early on to use my real name because I thought it would give me more credibility, I would make me think more about what I posted and because I thought that at some point someone would discover my identity anyway.<br /><br />Because of my opinions I have been attacked on several occasions and have a reputation as a trouble-maker, Trotskyist, Commie, Unionist, etc. etc. not just by anonymous users but by powerful and deeply unpleasant policy makers and political representatives. I wrote a blog explaining my conflicts of interest http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/about/ to save people the trouble of digging around and posted a picture of me waving an anarchist flag: http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/doctors-not-protesting/ <br /><br />Twitter is for the most part incredibly supportive and I can be (am) more political there than I am amongst my friends, very few of whom are as fired up as I am. <br /><br />As a politically active doctor I think it is vital to use my identity, but I say that as a GP in a secure partnership with academic ambitions. Speaking truth to power is very different if you are coming from a different, less powerful perspective.<br /><br />The most eloquent, active and interesting patient advocates I have met on twitter are in relation to #mentalhealth. Many of them choose to use social media anonymously and are no less effective for it, e.g. @_sectioned I know that she had a terrible experience in hospital as have other members of her family. She chooses to use twitter to learn about, advocate for and support other users who have experienced and understand mental health problems. For all I know, she might be a doctor. I would hate for her identity to be revealed.<br /><br />We choose to use twitter for different aspects of our lives. I worry for anyone who thinks that their identity is secure and would always caution against an anonymous account, but the supportive role of social media is extraordinary and I would hate for those who use it for the generosity of spirit and great kindness that exists - no less than a life-line, to be frightened away by the GMC ruling.Anne Marie Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05289974924032448531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4149957315810348152.post-10863218993931613832013-03-31T11:21:52.433+01:002013-03-31T11:21:52.433+01:00A medical TV channel would presumably be giving me...A medical TV channel would presumably be giving medical advice, which is something I (and most others) make it clear that I would never, ever do. If your account is specifically targeted at medical education or clearly designed to interface with the public on a medical topic, I totally agree that you must prove you know what you're talking about. The equivalent to your medical TV channel analogy would be a Twitter account entitled MEDICAL NEWS BY DOCTORS!! That's clearly nothing like what I'm doing here.<br /><br />I wasn't aware that there was a big problem with people imitating doctors on Twitter. Is there evidence of that? Even so, surely it would be better to have a system whereby people could raise concerns about suspicious accounts, rather than have a heavy handed blanket rule applied to everyone. Unless the GMC is planning to check and verify every single doctor's account, it isn't going to provide much of a guarantee.<br /><br />Also, can you define 'meaningful work'? Humorous, pseudonymous accounts like The Med Reg on Facebook have tens of thousands of followers, generate a lot of debate and make people laugh. I suppose it depends whether you think laughter is important.<br /><br />My Twitter account may be utterly irrelevant to the rest of the world, but as I've already explained, it serves a meaningful purpose for me.<br /><br />Dr C.Headaches<br />@CoffeeheadachesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com