1 min read
ByStephen Pollard, Stephen Pollard
I have a piece in today's Times on the dyslexic medical student who is suing the GMC. Here it is: Here's my problem: I love flying. I get a huge thrill at that moment when an aircraft accelerates on the runway and starts to take off. And so, since I've been a child, I've wanted to learn to fly.
But I can't. I have an unusual eye problem, one of the effects of which is that I do not have 3-D vision. So I'll never be allowed to fly an aircraft, because under Civil Aviation Authority rules my eye condition bars me from getting a pilot's licence.
I've always reasoned that although it's unfortunate that fate has determined that I will never wear a pilot's wings, the CAA must know what is and isn't necessary to fly safely, and if 3-D vision is needed, it's clearly sensible that it bans people like me from piloting aircraft. So instead of flying jumbo jets I do what my body will allow me to do and write for The Times. I've managed to live with the disappointment.
But a 21-year-old medical student, Naomi Gadian, takes a different view. Ms Gadian is dyslexic and is suing the General Medical Council because it uses multiple-choice tests as part of its qualification procedures. As a dyslexic, she finds them difficult. And she says that this means she is being discriminated against.
Forgive me, Ms Gadian, but you're missing the point. You're not being discriminated against. You're being weeded out. It's quite deliberate. If you can't read or write sufficiently well to pass a multiple-choice test, you shouldn't be a doctor.
To be blunt: someone who can't be sure to read 18mg rather than 81mg and who mistakes peroxone for paracetamol is not someone I'd want practising medicine on me - even if they had a wonderful bedside manner and a passion for medicine.
According to Ms Gadian: