It is “inappropriate and unwise”.
The case of Dr R is a cautionary tale.
Dr R worked in psychiatry at a Trust and late one evening with others attended a lap dancing club. Whilst at the club he inadvertently met a patient (or former patient) who was a dancer at the club. They spoke, he sat with her, he bought her a drink as part of buying a round of drinks for the other people but there was no sexual motivation in these interactions. Dr F did not at first recognise the patient until she introduced herself to him. In previous treatment he had taken a detailed history in two consultations.
There were a large number of allegations that were levelled against Dr R but were not found proved. It was alleged Dr R had requested a private dance, asked if the patient was a lesbian, told her he comes to clubs to psychoanalyse dancers because they cannot be mentally right to do this work and told her about a similar patient. Dr R had faced an investigation by the Trust, he had faced an investigation by the police and this was in addition to the GMC investigation and MPTS Hearing.
The Tribunal stated that Dr R should have left the club when he realised who the dancer was. They stated that “remaining in the highly sexualised atmosphere of a lap dancing club, knowing that that one of the dancers on the club was a patient of his, was inappropriate conduct which could affect patient’s trust in him and public’s trust in the profession”. The Tribunal did not accept the doctor’s submission he was a ‘young doctor’, they essentially stated that he was old enough to know better and assess risk. The Tribunal commented that fellow practitioners aware of all the facts would not find the conduct deplorable but would find it inappropriate and unwise.
They decided that whilst it was a serious departure from professional standards it was not serious misconduct and so there was no finding of impairment and no sanction was imposed. It has to be noted this was an isolated incident and Dr R showed significant insight which developed throughout all of the investigations.
Please note that the comments in this case review are generic, if you have any fitness to practise concerns please contact us for specific advice on your matter.
