Reforming the Process to Address Sexual Misconduct by UK Doctors: Experts Call for Major Changes

The current system for handling cases of sexual misconduct committed by doctors in the UK is under scrutiny, with experts advocating for substantial reforms to improve fairness, transparency, and victim support. In an article published in The BMJ, researchers highlight that the existing procedures rely heavily on subjective judgments and lack consistency, which can undermine public trust and fail to adequately protect victims.

Recent high-profile cases have brought these issues to light. For instance, an acute medicine consultant was given only a 12-month suspension after being convicted of rape, with the tribunal citing the incident as a one-time event and valuing the doctor's clinical competence highly. Similarly, a doctor involved in grooming and engaging in a sexual relationship with a vulnerable, underage patient received a suspension instead of being removed from the medical register, due to perceived remorse and efforts at remediation.

These cases raise concerns about whether the sanctions are sufficient to deter misconduct and whether victims are properly protected. Currently, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), which is independent but accountable to the General Medical Council (GMC), is tasked with adjudicating such cases. The tribunal's guidance instructs panels to weigh aggravating factors, like lack of insight or abuse of trust, against mitigating factors, such as remorse and character references, but many of these are subjective and open to interpretation.

Furthermore, the guidance does not explicitly account for serious misconduct elements like grooming, manipulation, coercion, or persistent abusive behaviors, which should warrant stricter sanctions. Panel members often lack specialized training in handling complex sexual misconduct cases, including rape and offenses against minors. Additionally, there is an evident imbalance in support: accused doctors typically receive full legal backing, while victims often lack access to legal representation and support services.

Recent research from The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons highlights that in nearly 25% of cases, sanctions were more lenient than the recommendations made by the GMC, indicating systemic shortcomings. Experts recommend establishing specialist tribunals, reducing reliance on subjective mitigating factors, enhancing support for victims, and providing comprehensive training on sexual misconduct to tribunal members.

The authors emphasize that sexual misconduct by doctors should be treated as a severe breach of trust, requiring strong sanctions and robust victim protections. They warn that without reform, the existing system risks enabling abusers and eroding public confidence in medical regulation.

In addition, there is concern about the treatment of victims during tribunal hearings, with reports of hostile cross-examination and evidence mishandling. An upcoming update to MPTS guidance is expected to address some of these issues.

The GMC has reiterated its zero-tolerance stance and commitment to supporting victims and survivors. Experts are also calling for the creation of a single, unified health regulator in the UK to streamline oversight, improve transparency, and uphold consistent ethical standards across health professions.

Overall, the article advocates for a transformation of the regulatory approach to sexual misconduct in medicine, emphasizing fairness, victim support, and preventive measures to restore trust in the healthcare system.