The background
The complaint alleged that throughout March 2017 to August 2017, the practitioner failed to maintain proper professional boundaries by entering into a romantic and personal relationship with the patient, which included:
- calling her approximately 85 times and sending text messages of a personal nature;
- meeting face-to-face outside of the practice;
- hugging and kissing;
- meeting in a motel on two occasions;
- making inappropriate personal disclosures and sharing information about his marriage, family and social life;
- giving her money, including for perfume and jewellery.
Throughout the period, the practitioner remained the primary GP for the patient, her husband and children.
The practitioner admitted his conduct was unsatisfactory, and acknowledged it was damaging to the patient, she was a vulnerable patient and he had crossed sexual boundaries.
The outcome
In its decision, the Tribunal found the practitioner’s conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
Having noted some personal mitigating circumstances, the Tribunal commented that, nonetheless, the practitioner had consciously disregarded his professional and ethical obligations not to form a personal relationship with a vulnerable patient, 20 years his junior, at a time when he continued to treat her family.
In its discussion, the Tribunal noted that their primary focus must be public protection, and not personal punishment, but they did have to consider the need for general deterrence of members of the medical profession, apart from specific deterrence of an offender who intends to continue in the profession.
The Tribunal ordered that the practitioner be reprimanded and that his registration be suspended for a period of six months, and that on his return to practice, his registration be subject to conditions.
The implications
The case highlights the inherent power imbalance in the relationship between vulnerable patients, their families and the practitioners providing care. The decision emphasises the need to maintain proper professional boundaries.
To read the decision in Health Care Complaints Commission v Sakla [2021] NSWCATOD 97, click here.
