(Un) Regulated Doctor

I previously blogged about the "Church doctor". This I did in part to defend my reputation where others had failed in their duty to do so. See Drugged Up. Somebody asked me after this: "Was the doctor struck from the roll?" My answer to this is that I do not know for what reasons doctors are struck from the roll -- however, this question assumes that there is someone who does the striking off -- at the least, assesses such cases. This may not be so. To summarise what I am here making public, I place below extracts of:

• A complaint to the regulator, which I submitted six times in full. Note that the identity of the doctor is clear.
• One of several receipts the regulator sent me. This clearly sets out the process to be followed. The process was repeatedly derailed.
• An instruction to assign the case, with the original complaint attached to it in full.
• An e-mail from the regulator, stating that the identity of the doctor is not clear and never was -- in which I am said to be at fault.

As a result of related behaviour, an official in the Department of Health recently referred the matter to the Minister himself. Why? What did he see? I shall make this one comment. Personally, I think he saw features of Regulatory Capture -- not to be conflated with State Capture. What happens in such cases is that a regulator begins to protect its members, rather than the public. Why would a regulator be motivated to do that? That is another question.