jonnyrotten Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Waiters, doctors, what next? What would be the public judgement if it was one of our MHKs doing the same thing in his office using one of the government computers? Why don't we wait until that happens before trying to stoke the embers of a non-existent fire with inflammatory (and irrelevant) speculation about what would happen if. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Was it the wife or the girlfriend he was sharing with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 This was actually as part of an ongoing investigation into him regarding various other stuff (none of it related to patients I hasten to add). Ultimately no criminal charges were brought, however because he is a Doc it went to the GMC. The GMC hearing has today declared that there was no further action to be taken against him. Nonetheless he still lost his job, his wife (the video was not to her), had to move off the Island and had this published about him in the local press. Pretty harsh really..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This was actually as part of an ongoing investigation into him regarding various other stuff (none of it related to patients I hasten to add). Ultimately no criminal charges were brought, however because he is a Doc it went to the GMC. The GMC hearing has today declared that there was no further action to be taken against him. Nonetheless he still lost his job, his wife (the video was not to her), had to move off the Island and had this published about him in the local press. Pretty harsh really..... True but for a man of his intelligence all foreseeable !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 It was also completely foreseeable how the quite barbaric treatment of him with the full glare of publicity would pan out. Are we really (generally) so sexually repressed that we really think this was a terrible crime? I think it was definitely ill-advised on work premises (although it appears not to have been in work time) but apart from that, what's the big deal? I really think the practice principle (assuming it was they who shopped him to the GMC) ought to review his/her policy on this type of thing. All this would have been most unlikely somewhere else where I spend a lot of time. It would have probably just resulted in a gallic shrug and everyone just carries on as normal without another thought. At least he's not ended up on some sort of register but I'll wager there's a few on here who think he should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierrot Lunaire Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 At least he's not ended up on some sort of register but I'll wager there's a few on here who think he should. He's on my Spunky Stethoscope Register. And rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx1e44 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I wonder how much satisfaction the narrow-minded busybody in the Peel practice has gained from setting this sorry process in motion. Did they 'get off' on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I wonder how much satisfaction the narrow-minded busybody in the Peel practice has gained from setting this sorry process in motion. Did they 'get off' on it? I don't know the detail, but surely a more likely source of the leak[1] is the recipient of the message? I assume this was a private message and he didn't communicate with his beloved via an open webcast or putting a video on YouTube. Perhaps when the relationship cooled, she contacted his practice partners in revenge or perhaps threatened to go public with the evidence. That said, it wasn't the business of his partners (except possibly to tease him a bit about it) and it certainly wasn't the business of the GMC. It's no excuse saying that they had to act because the case was reported to them - they must get frivolous complaints all the time, but they don't have act on all of them. The only people bringing the medical profession into disrepute are those that allowed the case to get as far as it did. [1] There is absolutely nothing you can do, when discussing this case, to avoid double entendres. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manx1e44 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I think it might be right to surmise that someone - possibly nonmedical - said something to the medics, who then felt compelled to act upon the complaint for fear of being accused of brushing things under the carpet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Aye, that is the nub of the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I would have said 'rub' really. Feel sorry for the lad, what he was guilty of, it would seem, was an illicit relationship; hardly GMC worthy. But we do seem to be in prying times. I mean, really, a young lad doing his best, not unlike any other, and he has his marriage, career and reputation trounced. We can all get self-righteous, but this ability to poke and prod will eventually rebound making us all criminals, or at least suspects. While we are fixated on some sordid, scurrilous or titallating shenanigens, that takes the focus off the real crims; the ones that traffic people and exploit children, or offload dodgy pharms to markets that can neither afford the drugs, nor their side effects. Ooh I could go on, but a young lad masturbating to a webcam is not the end of civilisation, nor should it be the end of his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hermes Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 In my opinion, stories like this can often indicate deeper problems with the individuals concerned, so perhaps it was best this doctor left the Isle of Man and went elsewhere to sort his attitude out. The GMC is not accusing this guy of entering into relationships with inappropriately young women patients or anything like that, but some of the comments on this forum are seeming to indicate that his behaviour was considered maybe less than wholly inappropriate in the context given. Get a grip, people! Dr Smith may have 'got off' at the GMC but his publicised actions still damage faith in his profession and in him as an individual: The GMC's remit is not to determine that fire is the cause of smoke, but merely to decide if such smoke smelt bad enough to justify striking the doctor off the medical register. The public may still be left with an impression, and that is their right, and the guy is going to suffer for it, as perhaps he should. He knew what was expected and he failed. You wouldn't want your doctor making inappropriately sexual or flirtatious comments to your teenage daughter during a consultation, so in much the same way you wouldn't want to think that a doctor is allowed to w@nk for his mistress over the internet on his computer in his consultation room during hours of employment, and then blame the fact of being caught on his not bringing his laptop to work! Such an excuse or counter-argument (as was seemingly reported) might seem a little 'sociopathic', surely? I think any boss would sack an employee for doing this, and for any individual not to realise this (particularly in a profession which hopes to enjoy sincere public trust) would suggest that he (or she) was perhaps unsuitable for their job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trmpton Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 You wouldn't want your doctor making inappropriately sexual or flirtatious comments to your teenage daughter during a consultation, so in much the same way you wouldn't want to think that a doctor is allowed to w@nk for his mistress over the internet on his computer in his consultation room during hours of employment, and then blame the fact of being caught on his not bringing his laptop to work! Such an excuse or counter-argument (as was seemingly reported) might seem a little 'sociopathic', surely? I think any boss would sack an employee for doing this, and for any individual not to realise this (particularly in a profession which hopes to enjoy sincere public trust) would suggest that he (or she) was perhaps unsuitable for their job... Really? You link flirtatious comments with a teenage patient, and 2 consenting adults enjoying some adult fun behind closed doors? You need to see a Dr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I wouldn't want a doctor making flirtatious comments to my daughter or anyone else's but he didn't did he and nor did he misuse any trust. Whilst the actions resulting from his poor judgement will not have done him or the profession any good in the self righteous proportion of the population there really was no need for it to become public. It is a huge over-reaction where then punishment is completely out of proportion with the crime (assuming you are judgemental or just plain mental enough to think it was a crime). Hermes have you ever done anything at work that didn't do anyone any harm yet, with hindsight, was perhaps a poor quality decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It's only in Peel where a private sex act could cause public outcry, especially from a medical practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.