2024-02-16 10:40:11
We have continued to have some issues with our emails and website, so if you have received this news item more than once, we apologise.
Sexually-motivated misconduct
In news items in 2022, we reported on the cases of GMC v Ahmed and Alberts v General Dental Council. In the latter case, Mr Alberts, a dentist, had made inappropriate comments to a dental nurse, including about her eyes, that left feeling uncomfortable and embarrassed. Mrs Justice Foster held that a woman was entitled to be protected from sexually motivated commentary.
The General Pharmaceutical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee has just made decisions in two fitness to practise cases involving allegations of sexually-motivated misconduct that might cause an eyebrow to be raised at the Professional Standards Authority which reviews healthcare fitness to practise decisions.
Muhammad Farook was an independent prescriber who was working as a locum clinical pharmacist at a GP practice. He conducted an internal vaginal examination of a patient who was not sexually active and who had not been complaining of a problem in the vaginal area. The Committee found that the examination was not clinically indicated, but accepted the registrant’s evidence and concluded that his motivation at the time for the intimate examination was not sexual, but a false and wholly mistaken belief that an intimate examination was justified, and that he was suitably qualified to carry it out. The Committee concluded “that the fact of there being an intimate examination did not of itself render conduct as sexual. To reach such a conclusion would be at odds with the legitimate work of doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare professionals.”
Simon Smith, was a pharmacist who faced allegations of sexually-motivated misconduct in relation to a patient and in relation to colleagues. While working as a locum at a branch of Boots, he had questioned a female patient in the hearing of other patients in the pharmacy about why she wanted to buy Canesten cream, and made her say aloud that she wanted it for her vagina.
The Committee found that making the patient say aloud that she wanted the cream for her vagina was not sexually motivated and that it was appropriate for him to ask which part of the body the cream was for, even though the Committee recognised that this made the patient feel uncomfortable. Asking the question would properly enable him to ensure that he was providing the correct product at the correct strength. However, the pharmacist had used words to the patient that caused embarrassment and were a serious breach of standards.
In relation to a separate allegation, the Committee found that there had been sexually-motivated misconduct in relation to a colleague (asking if she had tattoos in private areas; and asking about her boyfriends).
After finding that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired, the Committee decided to impose on Mr Smith a sanction of conditions, including a requirement to undertake training in interpersonal communication skills and in sexual boundaries.
Video evidence
In view of the number of fitness to practise hearings now taking place remotely, it is of note that although this case was heard in person, one of the witnesses had given evidence by video link. The Committee, rejecting a submission by the pharmacist’s KC that less weight should be given to video evidence, concluded that “there was no basis for attaching less weight to evidence given by video link given that there was no identified unfairness to the Registrant in evidence being received by that method.”