Legal issues
and was not immediately admitted. Those facts alone justify serious regulatory concern and could well have put this case in erasure territory. On the other hand, the conduct was
limited in duration, linked to specific personal circumstances, caused no direct clinical harm, and was followed by remorse, and remediation. In that light, the original suspension can be defended as a serious but time-limited sanction marking the importance of honesty, while leaving room for rehabilitation. If I were advising a client, on these specific facts, this outcome would have been in my list of best-case scenario outcomes.
Conclusion
Dishonesty in healthcare is genuinely serious, especially where it involves patient records. However, the public reaction in this case has emphasised aspects of everyday reality that a tribunal may easily overlook. In this case, the strength of support for Dr. Eisenhauer highlighted not a public willingness to excuse dishonesty, but a collective recognition of the extraordinary pressures that working parents face. Tribunals must continue to mark dishonesty
clearly, yet they should also remember to frame their reasoning within the case specific facts that have produced the behaviour. At a time when public opinion is rapidly amplified by social media, regulators must be keen to preserve independence, explaining plainly why honesty remains foundational and how proportionality can account for context without normalising misconduct. The tribunal’s task is therefore complex. It must uphold honesty, while avoiding the impression that professional discipline is detached from the lived conditions of the workforce it regulates.
CSJ
References 1. Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Dr Helen Eisenhauer, Dec 25 [Internet]. Manchester: MPTS; 2025 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and- decisions/tribunal-hearings-and-decisions/ dr-helen-eisenhauer---dec-25
2. General Medical Council. Good medical practice 2024 [Internet]. London: GMC; 2024 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://www.gmc-uk. org/professional-standards/good-medical- practice-2024
3. GMC v Theodoropoulos 2017 EWHC 1984 (Admin) - [Internet]. [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://tinyurl.com/3zr6f3z4
4. Yeong v The General Medical Council 2009 EWHC 1923 (Admin) [Internet]. [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://tinyurl.com/ y3mn9bhx
62
www.clinicalservicesjournal.com I October 2026
5.
Change.org. Support GPs and working parents: overturn an unfair suspension [Internet].
Change.org; 2026 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://www.change.org/p/support- gps-and-working-parents-overturn-an-unfair- suspension
6. The Times. That GP isn’t the only woman to fib about childcare. I did it too [Internet]. 2025 Dec 31 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://www.thetimes.com/life-style/ parenting/article/childcare-panic-new-years- resolutions-qsgthzhjz
7. General Medical Council. Supplementary guidance on violence and dishonesty that may represent a lower risk to public protection (Doctors) [Internet]. London: GMC; 2026 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from: https://
www.gmc-uk.org/cdn/documents/dc13478- guidance-for-decision-makers-when-violence- and-dishonesty-may-represent-a-lower- ris-85755346.pdf
8. Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service. Guidance for MPTS tribunals [Internet]. Manchester: MPTS; 2025 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://www.mpts-uk.org/ parties-and-representatives/guidance-for- tribunals
9. House of Commons Library. Expanding government-funded childcare in England [Internet]. London: UK Parliament; 2025 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from: https://
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/topic/social- policy/families-social-services/child-care/
10. Office for Budget Responsibility. Economic and fiscal outlook – March 2024 [Internet]. London: OBR; 2024 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://obr.uk/efo/economic-and-fiscal- outlook-march-2024/
11. Working Families. Working Families Index
2025 [Internet]. London: Working Families; 2025 [cited 2026 May 26]. Available from:
https://workingfamilies.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2025/05/WFI-Working-Families- Index-Report-2025.pdf
About the author
Alecsandra Manning-Rees is a barrister specialising in professional discipline and regulatory law at 5 St Andrew’s Hill, with experience in this field since 2017. Called to the Bar in 2018 and previously qualified as a Solicitor-Advocate in 2016, she acts both for regulators and registrants across a wide range of disciplinary and fitness to practise matters. Her work is particularly noted for sensitive witness handling, cross- examination, and managing complex, medically technical and document-heavy cases. She is appointed as a Legal Adviser to the General Optical Council and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. She is ranked in Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners for professional discipline
Halfpoint -
stock.adobe.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
