View source for Ambreen Malik (2021) MHLO 8 (MPT)

{{Case
|Date=2021-07-15
|Court=Medical Practitioners Tribunal
|Parties=Ambreen Malik
|Judicial history first case=Dr A Malik v CAS (Cygnet) Behavioural Health Ltd (2021) UKET 2403141/2018
|Sentence=Fitness to practise and covert medication
|Summary=The Medical Practitioners Tribunal decided that the doctor's fitness to practise was not impaired by reason of her misconduct: "The Tribunal was of the view that Dr Malik was acting in the best interests of Patient A and her motivation was solely to improve the health of Patient A so he could return to the community and avoid being admitted to the PICU. The Tribunal were agreed that at the time, Dr Malik genuinely believed that the only option she had to gain the best outcome for Patient A was for covert administration of ZD."
|Detail===Further extract from decision==
Taken from the LancsLive article mentioned below.

<div class="perm">
In its conclusion the panel stated: “The tribunal was mindful that making false statements to a patient does go against the principles of GMP.

“However, it accepted the evidence from Professor Mortimer that, in extreme cases such as this one, there may be justification for telling a ‘therapeutic lie’.

“The tribunal reminded itself of the publications submitted at the fact finding stage which outline when a ‘therapeutic lie’ might be justified, namely in cases such as this where the patient lacks capacity due to acute paranoid schizophrenia.

“There was a plan in place for covert drug administration which had been agreed by members of the multi-disciplinary team, Patient A’s family and the second opinion appointed doctor.

“The tribunal was mindful that this plan was agreed as the best course of action and intended to be short term, in order to allow Patient A’s health to improve and that Dr Malik intended to inform Patient A about the change in medication when he was well enough.

“The tribunal considered if Dr Malik’s actions in relation to what she told Patient A on the 20 July 2017 amounted to misconduct. It considered that in the particular circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the tribunal’s previous finding that Dr Malik was not dishonest at this time, her actions did not amount to serious misconduct.”

Although the panel acknowledged Dr Malik’s admission of misconduct the tribunal determined that Dr Malik’s fitness to practise “was not impaired by reason of her misconduct”.
</div>

==See also==
*[[Amy Fenton, 'Blackburn psychiatrist cleared of misconduct after lying about medication' (LancsLive, 20/7/21)]]
|External links=* {{link
|url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dr_ambreen_zahoor_malik_gmc_ref
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20241202222749/https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dr_ambreen_zahoor_malik_gmc_ref
|text=What Do They Know, 'Dr Ambreen Zahoor MALIK GMC ref. no. 6066144 - copy of MPT determination' (FOI request, 7/10/21)
}} - The paragraph above from the decision about best interests was taken from this page.

* {{link
|url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/review_request_not_impaired_deci
|text=What Do They Know, 'Review request: "Not impaired" decision in relation to Dr Ambreen Zahoor MALIK' (FOI request, 8/1/25)
}} - The decision had originally been published but the MPT refused to re-publish it.
|Subject=Miscellaneous cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2024-12-02 10:23:53 PM
}}