By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 03:39:49 +0000

Hilary, an interesting observation but surely "consensual" suggests an equity in responsibility and power. I do not think this is the case when there is a highly vulnerable patient and an ego-powered doctor. And that is why there are very clear guidelines about the nature of the doctor patient relationship and what should and should not be regarded as acceptable practice. What I found so disappointing about the UK case was the wording of Justice Collins ruling and it would be worth reading that if you can. In essence he said that no harm had been done and the doctor was a very important person. Of course there was more about procedural matters. But returning to your "consensual" position. There was, according to the many reports that emerged from the GMC hearing, no resistance to the sexual advances made by the doctor at the time but what happened later was certainly NOT consensual! I do remember feeling highly alarmed at the time when reading Clare Dyers account in the BMJ as a High Court Judge was imposing the sexual standards of the legal profession on those of the medical profession. As I intimated in the blog there were too many threads to pursue in depth but the point you raise is worth examining further as it raises some very important legal, ethical and moral issues in the context of sexual behavior in the professional relationship. Thank you.

By: hilary

hilary — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:37:09 +0000

The comparison with a full-blown affair is specious. An affair is consensual (otherwise it is rape). This was non-consensual and would, I hope, be treated as criminal assault here as in Hong Kong.

Comments on: Andrew Burd: Moments of madness

By: Andrew

By: hilary