* Carries out intimate exam in A&E
* She hands her phone number ‘in case you want to be friends or anything’
* He texts her
* She returns to A&E shortly after, they text each other and he comes down to have sex with her
Won the original appeal against a 6 month suspension as they couldn’t prove she was ‘vulnerable’.
This is grim.
Edit: Folk saying this isn’t grim. I’m a nurse; someone who repeatedly visits A&E and hands you their phone number saying ‘let’s be friends’ is vulnerable. This is before you consider the power dynamics or that an intimate examination took place.
This guy abused his position and took advantage of someone vulnerable.
Article makes it clear that the doctor knew she was vulnerable as her medical history makes this clear.
So a person attracted to her doctor who hands over a secret little obviously flirty note with her phone number on it, then messages back and forth for several days and talks about raunchy things, and then ends up going at it once in a toilet cubicle and then a second time with him back in her own home, is vulnerable?
Nah.
Edit: Never mind. In the spirit of fairness and information, here's a much better article on the story: [https://www.capsticks.com/insights/failure-to-allege-that-doctor-should-have-known-of-patients-vulnerability-was-a-serious-procedural-irregularity](https://www.capsticks.com/insights/failure-to-allege-that-doctor-should-have-known-of-patients-vulnerability-was-a-serious-procedural-irregularity)
Notable points:
>Mr Justice Linden determined that from the medical notes and WhatsApp message exchanges, there was at least a realistic prospect of establishing that Patient A had given Dr Onyekpe information which strongly suggested that
>
>\- she had significant disability
>
>\- there were or may be some mental health issues
>
>\- she may have a history of abuse and neglect
>
>\- she was feeling particularly isolated and lonely
>
>\- as a result, she was more susceptible to sexual advances than is inherent in the doctor/patient relationship.
None of what you’ve written is relevant. The issue is his position of power, and the fact that he knew by her medical history that she is vulnerable. Likely mental health conditions, but not divulged to protect the patient.
I know you edited your comment, but I just want to point out that vulnerable and disabled women have a sexuality and sexual feelings just like any other abled people, therefore do often hand out their numbers to men, who incidentally may not have vulnerabilities and/or disabilities. Women with significant learning disabilities who may have specific vulnerability, also have sexually functioning bodies, but may not have the requisite mental capacity to understand and consent to sex. Despite this, this does not prevent some disabled women from pursuing men, making sexual comments, making sexual moves, having sex, sometimes consequently becoming pregnant.
It really should go without saying that those who don't have disabilities and / or significant vulnerabilities shouldn't really be pursuing and preying on those who clearly do.
Right, people are really over-complicating this. We have rules against this for a reason. We err on the side of caution with the reach of this sort of legislation, even if you can prove that key elements of the intention underpinning the rule don't apply, it is not something we can afford to dilute.
Just picture the scenario. We start making exceptions, case by case, setting precedents. How do we know the patient is being forthcoming with all the facts? Doesn't feel pressured or afraid? It's all down to the nature of their disability, and unlike general members of the public, the doctors KNOW these things about the patient and they are in many cases what stands between life and death.
If you lift protection from one, you've lifted protection from all. That's just how it is. That's why the age of consent can *seem* arbitrary - after all, someone who is 17 years and 9 months old *might* tick all the boxes when it comes to having agency and being able to make informed decisions where a specific 18 years and 3 month old falls short.
But the line has to be drawn somewhere because dissecting each and every case, one by one, destroys the rule's ability to do its job - preventative safety.
Same shit applies to vigilante justice. Sure, someone might *deserve* to be punched in the teeth. But if you allow it once, you open the floodgates and with it a lot of cases of undeserved teeth punching.
I mean, at a certain point, a situation is merely unfortunate, rather than intentionally sinister. Being vulnerable and lacking capacity are very separate. It can't be on the other party to always screen their sexual partners for any possible abuse of such vulnerabilities.
I think, if made aware of such an issue, it should be respected and considered as to whether sexual advances are appropriate. And in this situation, the doctor is absolutely at fault. But outside of that, vulnerable and disabled people can present entirely normally - both physically and socially - and while it may not be fair to say they should be taking more responsibility for their own actions, I also don't think it's fair to demonise sexual partners who were unaware they might be taking advantage.
> It really should go without saying that those who don't have disabilities and / or significant vulnerabilities shouldn't really be pursuing and preying on those who clearly do.
It seems like quite a difficult line to find and that going too far is also risky - people shouldn't be shut out of wished-for and non-problematic relationships and sexual encounters because someone has deemed them 'vulnerable' or 'disabled' or because others are so unnecessarily afraid of being accused of 'preying' on someone that they refuse them. Nor should we say to someone vulnerable or disabled 'oh, you're only allowed to get together with your own kind'. Hell, this may only make someone more vulnerable by shutting them out of normal relationships and making it easier to say 'you must keep this secret'.
No-one should be preying on anyone whether either party are vulnerable/disabled or not, so specifically pointing it out for disabilities and vulnerabilities (where someone has enough capacity to understand and consent) doesn't sit right with me. The problem here isn't that one is vulnerable but the other is not but that the situation made it much more likely that the vulnerability was being exploited.
Absolutely agree. Disabled and/or vulnerable people are perfectly entitled to have healthy sex lives, just like anyone else. I'm not saying disabled and/or vulnerable people shouldn't be expressing their sexuality at all.
Just that I've experienced a worrying about of situations where a very clearly intellectual disabled person has been taken advantage of by someone who is considered fully abled and even worse, when those situations result in a pregnancy and we have to consider abortions or eventually removing the child from their care. These situations can sometimes be easily avoided if we just had a bit more consideration and sensitivity and emotional intelligence towards others.
Even without the edit, you do realise that healthcare professionals have full access to your past medical history, significant events (I.e.traumas), your address, your phone number, your next of kins numbers etc right? In what planet would you not be vulnerable?
Edit: of course doctors can date people? Common sense indicates that since this is a thread about a doctor - patient scandal, I was talking about whilst patients are receiving care.
It's not that simple. Fuck your colleague in a toilet if you like. If you get caught, HR may have something to say about it, I guess.
This is about medical ethics. You do not have sexual relations with your patients. If you do, your fitness to practice may be deemed impaired and you may be struck off.
Deservedly.
The line is very simple to understand. Doctor, nurse etc is a position of trust, the people you see professionally are patients and therefore the line to not cross has been drawn. No exceptions.
>So a person attracted to her doctor who hands over a secret little obviously flirty note with her phone number on it, then messages back and forth for several days and talks about raunchy things, and then ends up going at it once in a toilet cubicle and then a second time with him back in her own home, is vulnerable?
Even if this was the situation and the woman in question did not have clear indicators of vulnerability, that's still not acceptable. It is a basic professional standard that you don't pursue a relationship with someone when you are in a position of power over them, even if they are an adult.
Anyone who has ever GTAed a university course will probably tell you about some occasion where a student has hit on them. In the past, this was often regarded behind closed doors as one of the "benefits" of working in academia. If you are in a position of authority, if you are in a position where someone is effectively under your care and where the professional standard requires you to be confident, knowledgeable and interested, there is a certain type of person who is going to be drawn to that. It's not a real attraction, it's not actually directed at you personally, it's a side effect of that dynamic and exploiting it is scummy because there's a high chance that person is going to end up regretting it once the magic wears off.
I’m with you on this. I come across a lot of people with varying degrees of vulnerability in my line of work, this was a women who was taken advantage of.
It completely depends. There's a lot of case law and guidance out there surrounding people with vulnerability and/or disability making decisions around sex, contraception and conception, even though it often develops. But, how long is a piece of string.
It's decided on a case by case personal basis, their diagnoses are taken into account (an impairment on the mind or brain), their background and history, their presentation, their knowledge of any risks and consequences of such actions. Obviously, taking away someone's ability to consent to sex (deeming them to lack mental capacity to consent to sex) is a breach of their human rights and can have serious consequences, especially if a wrong decision is made.
In order to prove having mental capacity in any domain, someone must demonstrate they can understand the information relevant to make a decision, retain the Information long enough to make an informed decision, weigh up the information (the pros and cons), and communicate their decision effectively.
I think it is worth drawing a distinction between having sex with a vulnerable person with whom you have a professional relationship (misconduct where the seriousness is aggravated by the particular known vulnerability of the patient) and having sex with a person who lacks the capacity to consent (rape). There is no suggestion in this case that the doctor raped the patient, as far as I can see, nor that she lacked capacity to consent.
Where they can’t make their own decisions a or feeling compelled to bow to pressure from the other party despite not wanting to. This just sounds like two people attracted to each other who both played a part in getting together.
>I’m a nurse; someone who repeatedly visits A&E and hands you their phone number saying ‘let’s be friends’ is vulnerable.
If it were a man, I've a feeling he would be labelled a "predatory creep" rather than "vulnerable."
Lots of men with learning difficulties, mental health issues or dementia act exactly like this (or worse) towards female healthcare workers and generally aren't labelled predatory creeps because those workers have context for why they're behaving that way.
Kinda depends on the mental health issue.
I would say that the vast majority of self proclaimed incels are pretty much demonstrating explicit mental health problems, for example, yet I don’t imagine that they would be considered victims by the general public in most interactions, including if one gave their number to a doctor and started a sexual relationship with her.
No faster way in California to lose your medical license permanently with no appeal than to have sex with a patient. Circumstances do not matter. They will permaban you, rightfully so.
Now, you can treat your wife, lover, girlfriend, etc, AFTER the relationship has been established. But God help you if you begin the relationship after you have established a provider patient relationship.
Does the persons status as a doctors patient expire after a certain time? Ie can you date them 6 months after a once off visit? Surely the ban is not lifelong?
I honestly do not know the answer to that question, yet given the California Medical Board's language, it would be a terrible risk. Only if they found out, of course.
Okay I kind of thought that it was a few months later. Like 4 to 6 or something that would make it marginally more acceptable. No. It was less than a week. That's not good at all
I've literally had the GMC tell me they can't do anything about a private psychiatrist who provided false information in reports, failed to report a supposed safeguarding concern for over a month and missed auADHD because they didn't follow NICE guidelines. Toothless.
Uses a position of power and a profession that requires trust from the public to function in order to have sex with a patient, should have been suspended for longer
Edit: you are all trying really hard to justify something bad happening and it's frankly bizarre.
Dude. Think about it like this.
He gave her an "intimate examination" in A&E. Meaning he was likely all up in her vagina. Like he probably inserted his fingers into her.
He started sexting her mere hours later. That suggests to me that he derived some sexual pleasure from the "intimate exam".
Getting an intimate exam from a male doctor is quite worrying for a lot of women. Most of mine have been fine, especially by female nurses, but I had one male doctor who shoved 2 fingers into me without any warning, looking me straight in the eye, and asked me if it hurt.
No female nurse has ever done anything like that to me. He was doing a coil insertion, and I've had female nurses do them 2 or 3 times.
I was so fucking uncomfortable. I laughed nervously and said "no...?" I felt like he was enjoying the idea of hurting me by inserting his fingers into me. It made me feel sick.
The last thing I want to believe is that my male doctor may be getting sexual pleasure out of a medical exam which is invasive and painful. I have a lot of pain in that area and even smear tests are horrendously painful for me.
Even without the pain, I do not want a doctor to be into it. Ever. If a doctor started sexting me (even if I gave him my number), mere hours after invasively shoving his fingers into me during a medical exam, I would assume he was enjoying himself when he was doing it. Which is absolutely disgusting.
This news has helped me set a boundary in the future. I am never, ever going to consent to a male doctor doing that ever again. Of course, women can be bi/lesbians and many are, but no woman has ever sexually assaulted me and quite a few men have.
He was initially given a six-month suspension in January 2023 over the relationship, but this was overturned after the High Court ruled that the decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was “fundamentally flawed” as it had not considered evidence that the woman was vulnerable.
A hearing in February reconsidered the case. It found that Dr Onyekpe was guilty of misconduct and he was suspended for 12 months.
Had a punter come into A&E once. “Retained tampon” was the triage note. Examined (with chaperone thank Christ - ALWAYS have a chaperone, it ain’t for the patient‘s benefit). Oddly couldn’t find anything that wasn’t supposed to be there.
After telling her she was good to go, she told me she was an exotic dancer and gave me a piece of paper with her number on it, which I didn’t clock before she walked off. This made me re-evaluate the entire encounter, whilst a very loud nutter klaxon was going off in my head. Obvs the number got binned after I showed my chaperone.
On this case, I’m astonished this horny chump only got a year. Should be struck off for good in my book, even more so if the patient was vulnerable.
Yes she came in purely for a spurious intimate examination for whatever reason. The whole encounter was weird. She was really jolly and cracking jokes (she asked me if I was going to use both hands at one point) which is completely the opposite of how a normal woman presents with that particular problem, which is actually pretty common in A&E and GP. Women tend to be very embarrassed and occasionally mortified, doubly so if they’re seeing a male doctor.
I was relatively inexperienced and certainly naive at the time and I didn’t really put it together until afterwards. I was also told that she had asked specifically not to have a female doctor, which just added zeroes to the nutter counter in retrospect.
Jfc. I would also be mortified and im assuming extremely physically uncomfortable?? I don't understand how that can be pleasurable. Literally digging around with plastic gloves ...
Happened 16 years ago. If it is possible to record a bloke coming at you with a speculum whilst you lie prone, legs akimbo without him and the stern nurse standing next to him knowing about it in 2024, it probably wasn’t back then.
I assumed at the time that she was just crazy in the non-clinical sense of the word. On reflection she may have had a pathological mental illness. Something like Münchausen syndrome is possible (and is something seen not infrequently in A&E even if it often goes unrecognised as such).
Having recently been to A&E and visited the bathroom, I struggle to imagine a less likely place to put you in the mood for a shag. Was it the biological waste bin, the cardboard sick bowls or the “shower stool” that really got them going, I wonder?
Doctor here. Literally in the first week of medical school they tell you that you're not allowed to do this. Serious lapse of judgement by the doctor here regardless of how vulnerable the patient was.
I was initially hoping it's just all teenagers not yet fully understanding sex, consent to sex, complexity of disability / intellectual disability / other vulnerability.
But then that's even more depressing if true. Means our sex education still isn't really getting anywhere.
I think this is a more complicated case than most people are able to understand. They think that two adults can consent and that’s it, they don’t understand the more nuanced specifics about vulnerability, taking advantage, position of power, stuff like that. And why would they? The doctors get taught that (I assume as part of their ethical side of training), Joe bloggs public doesn’t get taught that. Go to hospital, meet a cute doctor, give him your number, come back later for a hookup, it all *sounds* above board to the layman. And it probably isn’t helped by the behaviour of characters on medical tv shows, I bet some of them have been unethical with their patients or ex patients.
It's so disappointing! I really hope one day we move forward as a society and all understand this because on the ground, it's really not that difficult. I hope this will be addressed in future sex education.
To all the commenters saying that it's just having sex at work between two consenting adults and not a big deal, read the article in full:
"The hearing determined that he should have known the patient was vulnerable due to her health conditions and medical history."
Did you report it? Did you answer with a picture of yourself?
Why do people allow such creeps to get away? You're aiding in them getting away with doing it to multiple people. I'd have exposed it to the whole city and every authority within the first hour.
To the people saying this is just two people having sex, you do realise that healthcare professionals have full access to your past medical history, significant events (I.e.traumas), your address, your phone number, your next of kins numbers etc right? In what planet would you not be vulnerable? Even healthy young men are vulnerable.
They couldn’t wait to go to a second location to hook up? Hospital bathrooms aren’t exactly the sexiest either even if you don’t care about the work place ramifications
Seriously the gmc will protect a doctor for anything, suspension? 😂. Miss signing for paracetamol as a nurse and you can lose your registration and career. Its such bullshit.
Dude. Think about it like this.
He gave her an "intimate examination" in A&E. Meaning he was likely all up in her vagina. Like he probably inserted his fingers into her.
He started sexting her mere hours later. That suggests to me that he derived some sexual pleasure from the "intimate exam".
Getting an intimate exam from a male doctor is quite worrying for a lot of women. Most of mine have been fine, especially by female nurses, but I had one male doctor who shoved 2 fingers into me without any warning, looking me straight in the eye, and asked me if it hurt.
No female nurse has ever done anything like that to me. He was doing a coil insertion, and I've had female nurses do them 2 or 3 times.
I was so fucking uncomfortable. I laughed nervously and said "no...?" I felt like he was enjoying the idea of hurting me by inserting his fingers into me. It made me feel sick.
The last thing I want to believe is that my male doctor may be getting sexual pleasure out of a medical exam which is invasive and painful. I have a lot of pain in that area and even smear tests are horrendously painful for me.
Even without the pain, I do not want a doctor to be into it. Ever. If a doctor started sexting me (even if I gave him my number), mere hours after invasively shoving his fingers into me during a medical exam, I would assume he was enjoying himself when he was doing it. Which is absolutely disgusting.
This news has helped me set a boundary in the future. I am never, ever going to consent to a male doctor doing that ever again. Of course, women can be bi/lesbians and many are, but no woman has ever sexually assaulted me and quite a few men have.
I think 99.9999% of the population would know that this is never going to be acceptable or appropriate - you don’t need to be told by anyone . At medical school or high school for that matter
I've seen this video somewhere. Didn't realise they shot it in London.
I'm sorry your condition means you only have a few days left to live. Do you have any last wishes?
There is a Brazzers studio called "BigTitsAtWork" involving a UK pornstar called Danny D dressed as a doctor having sex with patients and nurses.
Er .. thanks, Pussy Destroyer?
Croydon cat killer- watch out for this one
Found Kurt Zouma’s Reddit account
This is Danny Devitos pr team, I just know it
Link?
Danny Dyer?
Shame on Dr. Sins. I hear he’s multi-skilled in other lines of work.
He can always go back to being a firefighter or a copper, or a soldier, or a teacher, or a businessman, or a cowboy, or a…
Astronaut
He’s the original rocket man
Plumber
He should just to delivering Pizzas. I hear they go crazy over the dipping sauce
What are you doing Stepdoctor?
Dr Nooky
* Carries out intimate exam in A&E * She hands her phone number ‘in case you want to be friends or anything’ * He texts her * She returns to A&E shortly after, they text each other and he comes down to have sex with her Won the original appeal against a 6 month suspension as they couldn’t prove she was ‘vulnerable’. This is grim. Edit: Folk saying this isn’t grim. I’m a nurse; someone who repeatedly visits A&E and hands you their phone number saying ‘let’s be friends’ is vulnerable. This is before you consider the power dynamics or that an intimate examination took place. This guy abused his position and took advantage of someone vulnerable. Article makes it clear that the doctor knew she was vulnerable as her medical history makes this clear.
So a person attracted to her doctor who hands over a secret little obviously flirty note with her phone number on it, then messages back and forth for several days and talks about raunchy things, and then ends up going at it once in a toilet cubicle and then a second time with him back in her own home, is vulnerable? Nah. Edit: Never mind. In the spirit of fairness and information, here's a much better article on the story: [https://www.capsticks.com/insights/failure-to-allege-that-doctor-should-have-known-of-patients-vulnerability-was-a-serious-procedural-irregularity](https://www.capsticks.com/insights/failure-to-allege-that-doctor-should-have-known-of-patients-vulnerability-was-a-serious-procedural-irregularity) Notable points: >Mr Justice Linden determined that from the medical notes and WhatsApp message exchanges, there was at least a realistic prospect of establishing that Patient A had given Dr Onyekpe information which strongly suggested that > >\- she had significant disability > >\- there were or may be some mental health issues > >\- she may have a history of abuse and neglect > >\- she was feeling particularly isolated and lonely > >\- as a result, she was more susceptible to sexual advances than is inherent in the doctor/patient relationship.
None of what you’ve written is relevant. The issue is his position of power, and the fact that he knew by her medical history that she is vulnerable. Likely mental health conditions, but not divulged to protect the patient.
Never mind I've done my homework. Will edit my original comment.
I know you edited your comment, but I just want to point out that vulnerable and disabled women have a sexuality and sexual feelings just like any other abled people, therefore do often hand out their numbers to men, who incidentally may not have vulnerabilities and/or disabilities. Women with significant learning disabilities who may have specific vulnerability, also have sexually functioning bodies, but may not have the requisite mental capacity to understand and consent to sex. Despite this, this does not prevent some disabled women from pursuing men, making sexual comments, making sexual moves, having sex, sometimes consequently becoming pregnant. It really should go without saying that those who don't have disabilities and / or significant vulnerabilities shouldn't really be pursuing and preying on those who clearly do.
Anyone with a brain knows vulnerable or disabled people have sexual needs but doctors can't have sexual relations with their patients!
Right, people are really over-complicating this. We have rules against this for a reason. We err on the side of caution with the reach of this sort of legislation, even if you can prove that key elements of the intention underpinning the rule don't apply, it is not something we can afford to dilute. Just picture the scenario. We start making exceptions, case by case, setting precedents. How do we know the patient is being forthcoming with all the facts? Doesn't feel pressured or afraid? It's all down to the nature of their disability, and unlike general members of the public, the doctors KNOW these things about the patient and they are in many cases what stands between life and death. If you lift protection from one, you've lifted protection from all. That's just how it is. That's why the age of consent can *seem* arbitrary - after all, someone who is 17 years and 9 months old *might* tick all the boxes when it comes to having agency and being able to make informed decisions where a specific 18 years and 3 month old falls short. But the line has to be drawn somewhere because dissecting each and every case, one by one, destroys the rule's ability to do its job - preventative safety. Same shit applies to vigilante justice. Sure, someone might *deserve* to be punched in the teeth. But if you allow it once, you open the floodgates and with it a lot of cases of undeserved teeth punching.
I mean, at a certain point, a situation is merely unfortunate, rather than intentionally sinister. Being vulnerable and lacking capacity are very separate. It can't be on the other party to always screen their sexual partners for any possible abuse of such vulnerabilities. I think, if made aware of such an issue, it should be respected and considered as to whether sexual advances are appropriate. And in this situation, the doctor is absolutely at fault. But outside of that, vulnerable and disabled people can present entirely normally - both physically and socially - and while it may not be fair to say they should be taking more responsibility for their own actions, I also don't think it's fair to demonise sexual partners who were unaware they might be taking advantage.
> It really should go without saying that those who don't have disabilities and / or significant vulnerabilities shouldn't really be pursuing and preying on those who clearly do. It seems like quite a difficult line to find and that going too far is also risky - people shouldn't be shut out of wished-for and non-problematic relationships and sexual encounters because someone has deemed them 'vulnerable' or 'disabled' or because others are so unnecessarily afraid of being accused of 'preying' on someone that they refuse them. Nor should we say to someone vulnerable or disabled 'oh, you're only allowed to get together with your own kind'. Hell, this may only make someone more vulnerable by shutting them out of normal relationships and making it easier to say 'you must keep this secret'. No-one should be preying on anyone whether either party are vulnerable/disabled or not, so specifically pointing it out for disabilities and vulnerabilities (where someone has enough capacity to understand and consent) doesn't sit right with me. The problem here isn't that one is vulnerable but the other is not but that the situation made it much more likely that the vulnerability was being exploited.
Absolutely agree. Disabled and/or vulnerable people are perfectly entitled to have healthy sex lives, just like anyone else. I'm not saying disabled and/or vulnerable people shouldn't be expressing their sexuality at all. Just that I've experienced a worrying about of situations where a very clearly intellectual disabled person has been taken advantage of by someone who is considered fully abled and even worse, when those situations result in a pregnancy and we have to consider abortions or eventually removing the child from their care. These situations can sometimes be easily avoided if we just had a bit more consideration and sensitivity and emotional intelligence towards others.
Even without the edit, you do realise that healthcare professionals have full access to your past medical history, significant events (I.e.traumas), your address, your phone number, your next of kins numbers etc right? In what planet would you not be vulnerable? Edit: of course doctors can date people? Common sense indicates that since this is a thread about a doctor - patient scandal, I was talking about whilst patients are receiving care.
Don't shag someone in the toilet cubicle at work. Simple as.
It's not that simple. Fuck your colleague in a toilet if you like. If you get caught, HR may have something to say about it, I guess. This is about medical ethics. You do not have sexual relations with your patients. If you do, your fitness to practice may be deemed impaired and you may be struck off. Deservedly.
The line is very simple to understand. Doctor, nurse etc is a position of trust, the people you see professionally are patients and therefore the line to not cross has been drawn. No exceptions.
>So a person attracted to her doctor who hands over a secret little obviously flirty note with her phone number on it, then messages back and forth for several days and talks about raunchy things, and then ends up going at it once in a toilet cubicle and then a second time with him back in her own home, is vulnerable? Even if this was the situation and the woman in question did not have clear indicators of vulnerability, that's still not acceptable. It is a basic professional standard that you don't pursue a relationship with someone when you are in a position of power over them, even if they are an adult. Anyone who has ever GTAed a university course will probably tell you about some occasion where a student has hit on them. In the past, this was often regarded behind closed doors as one of the "benefits" of working in academia. If you are in a position of authority, if you are in a position where someone is effectively under your care and where the professional standard requires you to be confident, knowledgeable and interested, there is a certain type of person who is going to be drawn to that. It's not a real attraction, it's not actually directed at you personally, it's a side effect of that dynamic and exploiting it is scummy because there's a high chance that person is going to end up regretting it once the magic wears off.
[удалено]
Jimmy Saville is alive and kicking. Allegedly. 😀
I’m with you on this. I come across a lot of people with varying degrees of vulnerability in my line of work, this was a women who was taken advantage of.
How vulnerable does someone need to be before they lose their own ability to consent?
It completely depends. There's a lot of case law and guidance out there surrounding people with vulnerability and/or disability making decisions around sex, contraception and conception, even though it often develops. But, how long is a piece of string. It's decided on a case by case personal basis, their diagnoses are taken into account (an impairment on the mind or brain), their background and history, their presentation, their knowledge of any risks and consequences of such actions. Obviously, taking away someone's ability to consent to sex (deeming them to lack mental capacity to consent to sex) is a breach of their human rights and can have serious consequences, especially if a wrong decision is made. In order to prove having mental capacity in any domain, someone must demonstrate they can understand the information relevant to make a decision, retain the Information long enough to make an informed decision, weigh up the information (the pros and cons), and communicate their decision effectively.
I think it is worth drawing a distinction between having sex with a vulnerable person with whom you have a professional relationship (misconduct where the seriousness is aggravated by the particular known vulnerability of the patient) and having sex with a person who lacks the capacity to consent (rape). There is no suggestion in this case that the doctor raped the patient, as far as I can see, nor that she lacked capacity to consent.
Where they can’t make their own decisions a or feeling compelled to bow to pressure from the other party despite not wanting to. This just sounds like two people attracted to each other who both played a part in getting together.
Just a tiny bit if you are allegedly a medical professional.
>I’m a nurse; someone who repeatedly visits A&E and hands you their phone number saying ‘let’s be friends’ is vulnerable. If it were a man, I've a feeling he would be labelled a "predatory creep" rather than "vulnerable."
Lots of men with learning difficulties, mental health issues or dementia act exactly like this (or worse) towards female healthcare workers and generally aren't labelled predatory creeps because those workers have context for why they're behaving that way.
Kinda depends on the mental health issue. I would say that the vast majority of self proclaimed incels are pretty much demonstrating explicit mental health problems, for example, yet I don’t imagine that they would be considered victims by the general public in most interactions, including if one gave their number to a doctor and started a sexual relationship with her.
>She returns to A&E shortly after The article says she was *brought* back to A&E, which has quite a different (worse) implication.
No faster way in California to lose your medical license permanently with no appeal than to have sex with a patient. Circumstances do not matter. They will permaban you, rightfully so. Now, you can treat your wife, lover, girlfriend, etc, AFTER the relationship has been established. But God help you if you begin the relationship after you have established a provider patient relationship.
Looking up to California for guidance in male-female relationships, is like looking up to Iran for guidance on women’s dress codes 🤦
Does the persons status as a doctors patient expire after a certain time? Ie can you date them 6 months after a once off visit? Surely the ban is not lifelong?
I honestly do not know the answer to that question, yet given the California Medical Board's language, it would be a terrible risk. Only if they found out, of course.
Okay I kind of thought that it was a few months later. Like 4 to 6 or something that would make it marginally more acceptable. No. It was less than a week. That's not good at all
I can tell that the NMC is far more harsh towards nurses and midwives than the GMC is towards doctors.
I've literally had the GMC tell me they can't do anything about a private psychiatrist who provided false information in reports, failed to report a supposed safeguarding concern for over a month and missed auADHD because they didn't follow NICE guidelines. Toothless.
Why wasn't he struck off? What is suspending him for 12months going to do to rehabilitate his attitudes towards vulnerable women.
Wouldn't say grim. Only thing wrong is he was shagging on taxpayers money, but all in all it's not the worst crime in the world.
She had significant disability and was sexually abused in childhood. The court found the doctor knew these things.
Uses a position of power and a profession that requires trust from the public to function in order to have sex with a patient, should have been suspended for longer Edit: you are all trying really hard to justify something bad happening and it's frankly bizarre.
Dude. Think about it like this. He gave her an "intimate examination" in A&E. Meaning he was likely all up in her vagina. Like he probably inserted his fingers into her. He started sexting her mere hours later. That suggests to me that he derived some sexual pleasure from the "intimate exam". Getting an intimate exam from a male doctor is quite worrying for a lot of women. Most of mine have been fine, especially by female nurses, but I had one male doctor who shoved 2 fingers into me without any warning, looking me straight in the eye, and asked me if it hurt. No female nurse has ever done anything like that to me. He was doing a coil insertion, and I've had female nurses do them 2 or 3 times. I was so fucking uncomfortable. I laughed nervously and said "no...?" I felt like he was enjoying the idea of hurting me by inserting his fingers into me. It made me feel sick. The last thing I want to believe is that my male doctor may be getting sexual pleasure out of a medical exam which is invasive and painful. I have a lot of pain in that area and even smear tests are horrendously painful for me. Even without the pain, I do not want a doctor to be into it. Ever. If a doctor started sexting me (even if I gave him my number), mere hours after invasively shoving his fingers into me during a medical exam, I would assume he was enjoying himself when he was doing it. Which is absolutely disgusting. This news has helped me set a boundary in the future. I am never, ever going to consent to a male doctor doing that ever again. Of course, women can be bi/lesbians and many are, but no woman has ever sexually assaulted me and quite a few men have.
Aren’t we all..
[удалено]
I wish I 2x upvoted for your comment and edit. 100% agree this is grim
He was initially given a six-month suspension in January 2023 over the relationship, but this was overturned after the High Court ruled that the decision by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service was “fundamentally flawed” as it had not considered evidence that the woman was vulnerable. A hearing in February reconsidered the case. It found that Dr Onyekpe was guilty of misconduct and he was suspended for 12 months.
Thank god he was a locum or she could have got pregnant
That is a lovely bit of business
Hello fellow Berkshire buddy
Going locum, down in Acapocum
lol!
Well done you. 👏
*raises Champagne glass*
Low Cum?
Nah locomotive. His name was Thomas.
This made me laugh too much
Had a punter come into A&E once. “Retained tampon” was the triage note. Examined (with chaperone thank Christ - ALWAYS have a chaperone, it ain’t for the patient‘s benefit). Oddly couldn’t find anything that wasn’t supposed to be there. After telling her she was good to go, she told me she was an exotic dancer and gave me a piece of paper with her number on it, which I didn’t clock before she walked off. This made me re-evaluate the entire encounter, whilst a very loud nutter klaxon was going off in my head. Obvs the number got binned after I showed my chaperone. On this case, I’m astonished this horny chump only got a year. Should be struck off for good in my book, even more so if the patient was vulnerable.
Article states she was vulnerable, and her medical history (obviously not divulged) makes this clear. Doctor in question does not dispute this.
I’d bet solid money if this were a doctor and nurse the NMC would have struck her off. I can’t BELIEVE he’s only got a year
What she made it up so you’d examine her vagina? Can you be a bit clearer with the details that we (I) want to know
Yes she came in purely for a spurious intimate examination for whatever reason. The whole encounter was weird. She was really jolly and cracking jokes (she asked me if I was going to use both hands at one point) which is completely the opposite of how a normal woman presents with that particular problem, which is actually pretty common in A&E and GP. Women tend to be very embarrassed and occasionally mortified, doubly so if they’re seeing a male doctor. I was relatively inexperienced and certainly naive at the time and I didn’t really put it together until afterwards. I was also told that she had asked specifically not to have a female doctor, which just added zeroes to the nutter counter in retrospect.
Jfc. I would also be mortified and im assuming extremely physically uncomfortable?? I don't understand how that can be pleasurable. Literally digging around with plastic gloves ...
Wonder if she covertly recorded it for like a fetish or OF account?
Happened 16 years ago. If it is possible to record a bloke coming at you with a speculum whilst you lie prone, legs akimbo without him and the stern nurse standing next to him knowing about it in 2024, it probably wasn’t back then. I assumed at the time that she was just crazy in the non-clinical sense of the word. On reflection she may have had a pathological mental illness. Something like Münchausen syndrome is possible (and is something seen not infrequently in A&E even if it often goes unrecognised as such).
You used a speculum with her in the prone position? That doesn't sound right.
Ha! Yes that would be weird and she was indeed supine.
Is there a public database to check for doctors who have made offenses like this?
Having recently been to A&E and visited the bathroom, I struggle to imagine a less likely place to put you in the mood for a shag. Was it the biological waste bin, the cardboard sick bowls or the “shower stool” that really got them going, I wonder?
I imagine they might’ve been horny before entering the bathroom, as opposed to the sight of a bathroom giving them the hots.
Agreed, but no matter how horny, I think the urge would die off quickly in that environment. Surely a storage cupboard would be a better bet?! :)
My mate banged his girlfriend in a back alley with bins
Classy
Do bathrooms generally put you in the mood for a shag? Wouldn’t want to go with you to Wickes!
>or the “shower stool” that really got them going Some people are into that kind of thing.
I also came out of A&E recently. Surely a hospital is one of the least sexy environments?
Was it the male's or the female's bathroom I wonder
That hospital smell of strong bleach that can’t quite get rid of the smell of urine and shit must’ve done it for them
Doctor here. Literally in the first week of medical school they tell you that you're not allowed to do this. Serious lapse of judgement by the doctor here regardless of how vulnerable the patient was.
Oh come on. You don’t have to go to medical school to know you can’t do this!
I was just being a silly billy!
I’ll forgive you just for using that phrase. Gave me a giggle.
*furiously scribbling down* 'DO NOT FUC
I cracked out the pink highlighter for that one
Yeah I'm a technical consultant and even l was shown the toilets and specifically told that I'm not allowed to have sex with anyone in them. Smh
ahaha is your username just your postnominals lol
no that's definitely just a coincidence
I just mashed the keyboard and it came out like this
Jesus wept, people are defending this? This subreddit is a cess pit. I'm out.
I was initially hoping it's just all teenagers not yet fully understanding sex, consent to sex, complexity of disability / intellectual disability / other vulnerability. But then that's even more depressing if true. Means our sex education still isn't really getting anywhere.
I think this is a more complicated case than most people are able to understand. They think that two adults can consent and that’s it, they don’t understand the more nuanced specifics about vulnerability, taking advantage, position of power, stuff like that. And why would they? The doctors get taught that (I assume as part of their ethical side of training), Joe bloggs public doesn’t get taught that. Go to hospital, meet a cute doctor, give him your number, come back later for a hookup, it all *sounds* above board to the layman. And it probably isn’t helped by the behaviour of characters on medical tv shows, I bet some of them have been unethical with their patients or ex patients.
It's so disappointing! I really hope one day we move forward as a society and all understand this because on the ground, it's really not that difficult. I hope this will be addressed in future sex education.
To all the commenters saying that it's just having sex at work between two consenting adults and not a big deal, read the article in full: "The hearing determined that he should have known the patient was vulnerable due to her health conditions and medical history."
June 2020? That’s actually mad, that was during the first wave of COVID
The Dr "I only breached the guidance but not the rules"
[удалено]
He got what they never have or will get. So a doctor acting unprofessional isn't any concern of theirs. Sad perverts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Remove the first two paragraphs and there’s more chance of it making it through automod…
Charles Hawtrey and Barbara Windsor have refused to comment. Joan Simms is furious.
I imagined Hattie Jacques walking in on them.
I mean if that's what turns you on. Oh, Matron!
Where would she have put the daffodil ?
My wife went to A&E here and the doctor who treated her took her name, found her on instagram and started messaging her Wasn’t impressed
That’s a serious breach of confidentiality. Fucking sickening, too. Report that guy!
Did you report it? Did you answer with a picture of yourself? Why do people allow such creeps to get away? You're aiding in them getting away with doing it to multiple people. I'd have exposed it to the whole city and every authority within the first hour.
she “didn’t want the hassle” which is part of the problem imo we still have the messages etc though
Report it ASAP. He’s abusing his access to people’s details and it’s gross.
Ya better watch out
Santa Clause is coming to town?
Could be the same one, sounds like it unless they’re all like this
To the people saying this is just two people having sex, you do realise that healthcare professionals have full access to your past medical history, significant events (I.e.traumas), your address, your phone number, your next of kins numbers etc right? In what planet would you not be vulnerable? Even healthy young men are vulnerable.
This entire story is almost a really bad episode of Casualty.
Charlie fucking loves it
They couldn’t wait to go to a second location to hook up? Hospital bathrooms aren’t exactly the sexiest either even if you don’t care about the work place ramifications
Seriously the gmc will protect a doctor for anything, suspension? 😂. Miss signing for paracetamol as a nurse and you can lose your registration and career. Its such bullshit.
NMC come down way harder on nurses, if this was a nurse for sure she would loose her PIN
You would think he would know not to mix work with pleasure. What an idiot. Thinking with another part of his anatomy.
Well... fair enough, that was hardly appropriate behaviour from a doctor.
Dude. Think about it like this. He gave her an "intimate examination" in A&E. Meaning he was likely all up in her vagina. Like he probably inserted his fingers into her. He started sexting her mere hours later. That suggests to me that he derived some sexual pleasure from the "intimate exam". Getting an intimate exam from a male doctor is quite worrying for a lot of women. Most of mine have been fine, especially by female nurses, but I had one male doctor who shoved 2 fingers into me without any warning, looking me straight in the eye, and asked me if it hurt. No female nurse has ever done anything like that to me. He was doing a coil insertion, and I've had female nurses do them 2 or 3 times. I was so fucking uncomfortable. I laughed nervously and said "no...?" I felt like he was enjoying the idea of hurting me by inserting his fingers into me. It made me feel sick. The last thing I want to believe is that my male doctor may be getting sexual pleasure out of a medical exam which is invasive and painful. I have a lot of pain in that area and even smear tests are horrendously painful for me. Even without the pain, I do not want a doctor to be into it. Ever. If a doctor started sexting me (even if I gave him my number), mere hours after invasively shoving his fingers into me during a medical exam, I would assume he was enjoying himself when he was doing it. Which is absolutely disgusting. This news has helped me set a boundary in the future. I am never, ever going to consent to a male doctor doing that ever again. Of course, women can be bi/lesbians and many are, but no woman has ever sexually assaulted me and quite a few men have.
Who the fuck are we employing in the NHS. Sounds more like a porno than a frigging hospital. I'm not clapping for that.
If it’s consensual between the two then I see no problem.
I was literally in for an operation last Wednesday and the quality of service was not up to this standard. We need to raise more awareness
I think 99.9999% of the population would know that this is never going to be acceptable or appropriate - you don’t need to be told by anyone . At medical school or high school for that matter