After a brief foray in the nightmarish hell that is the English medical system, the main difference between the two (so far) is that the Medical Officer would most likely be a physician, while the Chief Surgeon would be, well, a surgeon.
If that's the case (and it's early days yet) then the pecking order would be the Physicians at the top, and the Surgeons one step down, with a "surgeon and physician" (today known as a GP) coming up the rear--the likelihood of the latter rising to such an exulted status within the Met seems pretty unlikely though.
edit: scratch that last part. It would appear that within the Met, the Chief Surgeon of Police would be of a higher rank than a Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Surgeon appears to be part of the "brass", albeit a civilian part.
Thanks, Neil, could be, that sounds sensible. The thing that confuses me with that though is that the 'Chief Medical Officer' I was looking at was mentioned because he was specifically doing several post-mortems at the time and not checking out the malingerers in the force.
...Unless he was doing the post mortems in a different role and he was holding this post at the same time. Something to ponder anyway.
Hi all,
Does anyone know what the difference might be between the 'Chief Medical Officer' of the Metropolitan Police and the 'Chief Surgeon' of the same organisation?
What I would like to find out is if they were actually the same post or not, and if not which was the higher rank of the two and what qualifications might be needed for either?
Chief Surgeon seems like it would require surgical qualifications, obviously, but what about chief Medical Officer?
Any help appreciated, thanks
p.s. Rob, just got your email,thanks, you are thinking the same thing I am about the two. I'm just sending a reply now to do with what we were talking about and the reason I want to know this.
Leave a comment: