Born in Barbados to a Guyanese father (economist, Dr Vishnu Persaud) and a Trinidadian mother (novelist, Lakshmi Persaud), educated in the United Kingdom, where he has distinguished himself as a practising psychiatrist, academic and media star, Dr Raj Persaud has achieved more than most of us could ever dream of attaining in his 45 years.
Consultant Psychiatrist and Senior Lecturer at the renowned Maudsley Hospital in London, Visiting Professor for Public Understanding of Psychiatry at Gresham College, London and Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, TV presenter and pundit, author of books, academic papers and countless newspaper articles, fêted by the British media as the UK’s most famous psychiatrist and celebrated for making psychiatry accessible to the layman, embraced by John Mair as a member of the “Guyanese Mafia” in the UK and acclaimed as an outstanding member of the Guyanese diaspora by the Guyana High Commission in London, Dr Persaud is a classic example of an overachiever and high-flier.
Sadly, he has fallen spectacularly from grace and his professional reputation lies in tatters following embarrassing revelations during a five-day hearing held under the auspices of the British General Medical Council, which concluded in Manchester last week.
The GMC’s Fitness-to-Practise Panel has found him guilty of repeatedly plagiarizing the work of other academics and has ruled that his ability to practise as a psychiatrist has been “impaired” by his actions, which have brought his profession into disrepute.
In delivering the verdict, Dr Anthony Morgan, chairman of the panel, is reported by The Daily Telegraph to have told Dr Persaud:
“Doctors occupy a position of privilege and trust in society and are expected to act with integrity and to uphold proper standards of conduct. Your conduct has fallen below the standards of behaviour that the public is entitled to expect from doctors and undermines the public confidence in the profession.”
Dr Morgan added that the panel had determined that Dr Persaud’s conduct in “plagiarising other people’s work on multiple occasions” was “dishonest” and represented “a serious breach of the principles that are central to good medical practice.”
Nevertheless, according to the Times, the panel also recognized that no patients had been hurt in any way by Dr Persaud and “that his plagiarism was not financially motivated, that it did not relate to research fraud and that it was unlikely to be repeated.” Thus, the panel has ruled that “a three-month period of suspension is sufficient to send out a signal to [Dr Persaud], the profession and the public that plagiarism is unacceptable behaviour.”
Notwithstanding the stern words of the panel, it would appear that the actual punishment meted out is a balanced one. There was clearly no justification for striking Dr Persaud off the medical register. However, the long term damage done to Dr Persaud’s professional standing and personal reputation may be immeasurable.
Dr Persaud has himself acknowledged his errors and apologized repeatedly to the panel and the public. In mitigation, he has pleaded that the stress in meeting deadlines was responsible for his failure to acknowledge the work of others in his own publications.
However, the crime of plagiarism in academic circles is an egregious one, made more so when committed by one who was himself a highly respected and high profile teacher. It obviously sets a bad example to students, especially in the age of the Internet when a prodigious amount of information is easily available in cyberspace.
For someone of Dr Persaud’s proven ability and previous record of achievement, these errors were unnecessary. Clearly, Dr Persaud had overextended himself, perhaps succumbing to the siren song of the British media and the cult of celebrity.
Now elements of the same media have turned on Dr Persaud and there is more than a hint of schadenfreude in some of the comments appearing in the press. Some have even suggested, rather uncharitably, that he needs psychiatric help for problems related to ambition, egoism and narcissism.
Indeed, it is not unlike the tendency in our own part of the world to take delight in the misfortune of those who we think have risen too far in public life. This newspaper, however, takes no pleasure in Dr Persaud’s plight. Rather we are saddened that someone with strong Guyanese roots and such evident ability should have left himself open to such public humiliation.
The most that can perhaps be said, albeit from a distance, is that Dr Persaud might have driven himself too hard to succeed, even as, or because, he revelled in the public acclaim he reaped. His case may well be worthy of a psychiatric case study, but we are confident that he is well equipped to analyse the error of his ways and set things right himself.
Ultimately, Dr Persaud’s case is an object lesson for us all in how to manage our ambitions and the ever increasing demands of success. It is also a reminder of the need to keep one’s feet firmly planted on the ground. Dr Persaud simply needs to be honest with himself, as do we all.
