‘Obscuring information!’ Doctors who change gender have wrongdoing scrubbed from public record as 62 undertake ‘new identities’

The General Medical Council (GMC) has given new registration numbers to 62 transgender doctors, effectively hiding their previous identities and disciplinary records from public view.

The practice means patients are unable to access historical information about their doctors’ professional backgrounds if they have transitioned.

The GMC confirms that when doctors transition, any previous sanctions or disciplinary actions are not visible on their new public-facing record on the medical register.

This policy has sparked concerns about patient consent, transparency and women’s rights to choose female doctors for intimate care.

A GMC number serves as a doctor’s professional fingerprint, appearing on all paperwork including training, appraisals, prescriptions and complaints.

Under current guidelines, doctors are not required to provide evidence of their gender status change when requesting a new registration.

When doctors transition, their previous registration page remains on the GMC list without any visible link to their new identity.

The GMC maintains that records are linked internally, but states this information must be withheld from the public due to “legal protections afforded to individuals, including human rights and equalities law, data protection law and the Gender Recognition Act.”

The case of Dr Beth Upton highlights how this system works in practice. Records show their previous registration was “relinquished” in April 2023, with no reference to this on their current record.

“When you look up Dr Beth Upton and you don’t see any reference to the doctor’s professional life or records before the change of identity and GMC number, including previous name, then you have a problem with accountability and transparency,” Dr Louise Irvine, co-chair of the Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender, told The Telegraph.

Dr Upton is one of the 62 doctors who have received new GMC registrations under different numbers.

Sarah Vine, a KC at Doughty Street Chambers, calls the GMC’s position “unsustainable,” arguing there is a strong public interest in knowing doctors’ disciplinary histories.

“It’s very hard to argue that a doctor’s privacy is something that can override that legitimate purpose,” she says.

Vine suggests the GMC has misinterpreted various laws, explaining that public disclosure of suspensions cannot be overridden simply because a doctor has asserted a particular gender identity.

She notes that while the Equality Act protects gender reassignment, this “has nothing to do with the non-disclosure of a doctor’s record.”

The lack of clear information about doctors’ biological sex particularly affects female patients seeking care from biological women, experts warn.

“The implications of this are particularly severe with female patients, who may have requested a female doctor and have not consented to be examined by a man,” says Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters.

Patients may have personal, religious or cultural reasons for wanting to see a biological female doctor.

“You can’t present as a woman on paper and expect patients to sort this out at the rough end of the process in the consultation room,” Joyce adds. “Nobody should be put in that position.”

The GMC defends its position, stating that connections between records are maintained internally “for administrative and regulatory purposes.”

A GMC spokesman emphasises that “the creation of a new record cannot be used as a way to circumvent investigation of concerns.”

The regulator acknowledges that people “may have particular reasons for wanting to see a doctor of the same sex,” but maintains that the “primary purpose of the Medical Register is to confirm that doctors have the appropriate training, skills and experience.”

The GMC advises that patients seeking doctors of a particular sex should obtain this information from their local healthcare providers.

Medical professionals have expressed serious concerns about the GMC’s current practices regarding transgender doctors’ registration numbers.

A retired anaesthetist who contacted The Telegraph argues that missing or relocated career data undermines the GMC’s role in overseeing professional information.

“All the other doctors I’ve spoken to – retired or otherwise – say it just doesn’t feel right,” the anaesthetist says. “One of the founding principles of the GMC was to provide public confidence. So the public needs to be confident about who these doctors are.”

The issue particularly affects doctors who transition after lengthy careers with multiple revalidations or complaints.