What did the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service ruling say in detail about Dr Tom Gilhooly’s misconduct?

1. The misconduct findings: prescribing outside licensing and guidance

The tribunal’s central finding was that Dr Gilhooly prescribed medicines for conditions for which those drugs were not licensed and did so without sufficient clinical consideration, placing patients at risk; as a result the panel imposed conditions including a ban on prescribing medicines outside official guidelines for six months ^{[1] [2]}. The Medical Tribunal described his prescribing as lacking “sufficient consideration” and explicitly judged that in three of the cases his practice was “seriously below the standard expected of a reasonably competent GP,” directly calling his clinical judgement into question ^[2].

2. Specific cases the tribunal scrutinised

The hearing examined multiple discrete patient episodes: LDN given to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and chronic fatigue, a prescription of risperidone and an antipsychotic dose supplied to a child with Down’s syndrome, treatment for a four‑year‑old boy with autism at a parent’s request, and prescribing to a pregnant patient and a cancer sufferer who ultimately declined the drug — all were singled out during the GMC’s investigation and tribunal hearing ^{[2] [3]}. Those individual examples formed the factual backbone for the tribunal’s finding that Dr Gilhooly’s desire to help had led him beyond acceptable boundaries of practice ^[2].

3. Low‑dose naltrexone: the controversial thread through the case

LDN was a recurring focus: Dr Gilhooly had championed low‑dose naltrexone as an off‑label therapy for MS and similar conditions, and the tribunal recorded that he told it he would not prescribe LDN again — a concession the panel relied on when assessing insight and risk of repetition ^{[1] [2]}. The tribunal portrayed his promotion of LDN as “carrying the banner” for a controversial treatment, and this advocacy was weighed alongside concrete prescribing decisions when determining misconduct ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Sanctions, rationale and assessment of future risk

The MPTS imposed a time‑limited set of restrictions — notably the ban on prescribing outside licensed indications and other conditions on practice for six months — reasoning that Dr Gilhooly’s admissions, expressed insight, and promise to stop prescribing LDN reduced the likelihood of recurrence and made lengthy suspension or erasure unnecessary ^{[2] [1]}. The panel explicitly contrasted misconduct proved in some cases with the doctor’s mitigation, stating the conduct was “highly unlikely to be repeated” given his acknowledgements ^[2].

5. Context, competing perspectives and reporting limits

Reporting makes clear the GMC brought the charges and the MPTS reached a disciplinary outcome, and papers highlight Dr Gilhooly’s prior roles advising Scottish and UK governments on drug misuse as relevant background to the wider public interest ^{[3] [1]}. Alternative views exist in this record: the tribunal’s mitigation reflects a redemptive regulatory approach that can favour conditions over erasure when insight is shown ^[2], but the available coverage does not include the full MPTS written determination or the defendant’s full submissions, so this summary cannot reproduce every factual nuance or legal reasoning beyond what the BBC and Herald reported ^{[1] [2]}.