Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
A vulnerable The patient struck the “light” punishment granted to a doctor who had an inappropriate Sex with her while she was a teenager.
Dr Cian Hughes Treated the girl in the hospital in 2011 when she was only 13 years old and went On to start sex with her four years later.
Dr. Hughes, a 23 -year -old A fourth year student in medicine at the University of Bristol at the end of the pair, was suspended last week for fault. But the service of the doctors’ court did not withdraw it, Despite the pleadings of the General Medical Council.
The victim, the patient, now struck the sanction and accused the panel of having refused him a voice after she was not allowed to provide oral evidence.
She said The independent: “The penalty is very light for the impact he had and the things he did to me. My confidence in the medical profession is almost non -existent.
“I think [the sanction] is too lax. This affair is not only for me and him. There is nothing that you can do to undo what has done and what happened. The reason for which I have followed this in the past five years was to make sure that other doctors do not do so to other patients. »»
The woman, who suffers from SSPT, added that she The physical handicap was not highlighted by the tribunal panel as an aggravating factor, but it thinks that it should have been.
“”[This]With the age gap, my mental health at the time, the way we met, how much I trusted him and my naivety around relationships contributed to a very unhealthy imbalance of power, “she said.
“The long -term consequences of his actions for me will be potentially permanent.”
During the MPT hearing, thousands of messages between Dr. Hughes and the young woman were presented, as well as a written statement.
The defense of Dr. Hughes said that the relationship between Dr. Hughes and patient A was “a very loving relationship”.
The patient, on the other hand, said that he was “a very capable and kind health professional” but said “behind the room door, it was a different person” who, according to her, was not displayed in text messages.
Patient a said The independent She was clear for the MPTs she could and wanted to testify, but she was refused.
According to MPTS rules, victims of doctors faced with complaints of sexual misconduct are not always called upon to provide oral evidence unless the panel or the doctor requests it. Witnesses are only called to provide live evidence when their evidence is disputed by part of the court.
She added: “I left by feeling more traumatized, especially since I had always said that I wanted to provide oral evidence.
“”[The MPTS’s] The process is hostile victim. This process does not allow me to have a voice or even be treated as a victim by the MPT. »»
In its determination of the sanction, the MPTS court said that Dr. Hughes’ misconduct “was serious and justified a significant response to mark its severity.”
However, to determine that the suspension was more appropriate than the prohibition of the profession, it highlighted attenuating factors, in particular the admissions of doctors, apologies and “well -developed information, remediation and remorse”.
He said he accepted the submissions of Dr. Hughes’ lawyer that it was a “nuanced” and “distinguished case of other cases of sexual misconduct where erasure was necessary”.
The panel also said that although Dr. Hughes “abused his professional post” and had started an “inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable patient”, it was found that he had not exploited his vulnerability.
In submissions, the GMC argued that Dr. Hughes had shown a “blatant contempt” for advice on inappropriate relations. However, the MPTS panel accepted the doctor’s argument that he had “convinced” that the directives “allowed the relationship”.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the doctor also faced companies by the Irish medical advice.
The BMI would not confirm any details of the complaint; However, the conditions listed on his register indicate: “Dr. Hughes is subject to a company that he will not, among other things, of certain groups of patients, except in specified conditions.”
Rebecca Cox, co-founder of Campaign Group Surviving In Scrubs, who campaigned against sexual assault within the NHS, said that the group was “dismayed” to see “another weak sanction” of MPTs.
She added: “Unfortunately, this corresponds to a tendency to sanction decisions which do not reflect the seriousness of the case or the distress caused to the victims. The MPTs repeatedly fail victims of sexual misconduct and violence.”
Dr. Cox said the lack of opportunities for the victims to express his testimony is a problem that has been raised several times.
Professor Carrie Newlands, consultant surgeon, co-directed for the working group on sexual misconduct in surgery at the Health and Medical Sciences, said: “This is another case of a doctor against someone vulnerable with an imbalance of significant power, and where despite the GMC recommending the erasure, the MPTs have again received a lesser sanction.”
She said that the suspension of a doctor for such a “blatant behavior” is incompatible with the Zero tolerance approach from the GMC to sexual misconduct and incompatible with MPTS guidelines, which indicates a more serious action, as being struck, is probably appropriate in cases of sexual misconduct.
In 2020, the patient reported to the police; However, in April 2021, the investigation was closed nothing more.
Reacting to the suspension of the court, a spokesman for the GMC said that he would examine if there were reasons for appeal against the MPTS decision, but said that the 12-month suspension was still a “important sanction for Dr. Hughes”.
Dr. Hughes was approached to comment on his lawyers.
The MPTs refused to comment.
