Page Section: Centre Content Column
Inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient (06HDC01330)
Download Inappropriate sexual relationship with a patient (06HDC01330) (PDF 139Kb)
(06HDC01330, 18 January 2007)
General practitioner ~ Sexual relationship ~ Ethical and
professional standards
A GP conducted a sexual relationship with a female patient over
more than a year in the 1980s. The Health and Disability
Commissioner Act allows the Commissioner to investigate matters
occurring before July 1996 only when the conduct complained of
would have been grounds for disciplinary proceedings at the time.
The Commissioner concluded that there was a strict prohibition
against doctors engaging in sexual relationships with patients at
the relevant time. Accordingly, the threshold for jurisdiction was
reached.
The GP treated the patient intermittently over the relevant
period for general matters. The GP also provided medical services
to the patient's family, including her children and husband.
Neither the fact that the GP and patient also knew each other in a
social context, nor that it was a small rural town, excused the
breach of professional and ethical standards. The Commissioner was
also critical of the GP for contacting the patient after the
investigation was commenced and encouraging her not to pursue the
matter.
The matter was referred to the Director of Proceedings, who
decided to lay a charge before the Health Practitioners
Disciplinary Tribunal. The charge comprised two particulars, the
first relating to the sexual relationship and the second regarding
an allegation that the doctor had deliberately attempted to subvert
the Commissioner's process.
On the first particular, while the Tribunal found that the
established facts amounted to malpractice and to the bringing of
discredit to the profession, they did not warrant disciplinary
sanction. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal noted that this
was a very unusual case, and cited the following factors in
reaching the decision it had: the genesis of the sexual
relationship had been in social contact in the context of the
parties living in a small community; the only established medical
consultations were for relatively minor matters which did not place
the patient in a position of being unduly vulnerable; there was
serious delay in bringing the matter before the Tribunal; in
response to the complaint, the doctor had stood down from obtaining
a senior office within his profession; a Performance Assessment
Committee Report verified that the doctor had a high awareness of
the need to maintain boundaries and the potential risks associated
with not doing so.
With regard to the second particular, the Tribunal was not
satisfied that the allegation that there was a deliberate attempt
to subvert or interfere with the HDC process had been
established. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the
charge.
Link to Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decision:
http://www.hpdt.org.nz/portals/0/med0765ddecdp070-substantive%20hearing(anon).pdf