|
|
Allegations of Sexual
Abuse in NZ |
|
|
|
|
A doctor accused of
sexual offences against 10 female patients has been allowed to continue practising
medicine until his trial in September. His name has been suppressed while
he faces 35 counts of sexual offences, which allegedly occurred from 1981 to
2002. The New Plymouth doctor - who
denies the charges - was arrested in 2004 and at first charged with 13 counts
of indecent assault and one of sexual violation, the Taranaki Daily News
reported. The newspaper and the Crown have
since been to the High Court in an unsuccessful bid to have the interim
suppression order lifted. Yesterday the Medical Council's
chief executive, Philip Pigou, told the Herald that the council had imposed
conditions on the doctor. He must not: * Conduct any intimate examination
(breast or pelvic) of a female patient, except in emergencies; * Examine any female patients or
children without a chaperone being present. Mr Pigou refused to discuss why
the doctor had not been suspended. "I can't talk about individual
cases." The doctor's lawyer, Harry
Waalkens, said there was no basis for suspension. "This case doesn't merit the
threshold to warrant suspension. "There's a whole range of
facts related to the case that make the allegations seriously opposed." New Plymouth Women's Health Centre
co-ordinator Mary Allen said many people in the city knew who the doctor was,
despite the suppression order, but some did not. "I've had conversations with
some people here who are concerned, like 'is it my doctor?' All male doctors
[in New Plymouth] are under suspicion because they are not releasing this
information." She was aware of the allegations
against the doctor before they were made public - "just through people
discussing their own personal issues and those of other people they
know." Justice Rodney Hansen said the
harm to the doctor of naming him publicly meant interim suppression should
continue. The Crown and the newspaper had
not established public-interest grounds strong enough to justify inflicting
that harm before a trial. The conditions imposed on the
doctor protected patients. The judge did not think naming the doctor would
affect his risk of re-offending, which was negligible. * The Health Practitioners
Disciplinary Tribunal and its medical predecessor, the Medical Practitioners
Disciplinary Tribunal, created by 1996 legislation, have together ruled on 20
cases of sexual misconduct and/or inappropriate touching by doctors; 15 of
the cases were established and five were not. Several of the cases were
referred following court convictions. |
