A vulnerable patient has hit out at the “light touch” punishment given to a doctor who had an inappropriate sexual relationship with her while she was a teenager.
Dr Cian Hughes met the girl in hospital in 2011 after observing her surgical procedure at Bristol Children's Hospital when she was aged just 13 and went on to start a sexual relationship with her four years later.
Dr Hughes, a 23-year-old fourth-year medical student at the University of Bristol when the pair met, was last week suspended for misconduct. But the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service did not strike him off, despite pleas from the General Medical Council.
The victim, patient A, has now hit out at the sanction and accused the panel of denying her a voice after she was not allowed to give oral evidence.
She told The Independent: “The penalty feels very light touch for the impact he's had and the things he has done to me. My confidence in the medical profession is pretty much non-existent.
“I think [the sanction] is too lax. This case isn't just about me and him. There's nothing you can do to undo what he did and what happened. The reason I followed through with this for the last five years has been about making sure that other doctors don't do it to other patients.”
The woman, who suffers from PTSD, added that her physical disability was not highlighted by the tribunal panel as an aggravating factor, but she believes it should have been.
“[This], along with the age gap, my mental health at the time, the way we met, how much I trusted him and my naivety around relationships contributed to a very unhealthy power imbalance,” she claimed.
“The long-term consequences of his actions for me are potentially going to be lifelong.”
During the MPTS hearing, thousands of messages between Dr Hughes and the young woman were presented, as well as a written statement.
Dr Hughes's defence said the relationship between the medic and Patient A was “a very loving relationship”.
Patient A, meanwhile, said he was “a very capable and kind mannered medical professional” but claimed “behind the bedroom door, he was a different person” which she said was not displayed in the text messages.
Patient A told The Independent she was clear to the MPTS that she could and wanted to give evidence, but was denied this.
According to MPTS rules, victims of doctors facing sexual misconduct claims are not always called to give oral evidence unless the panel or the doctor ask for them to be. Witnesses are only called to give live evidence where their evidence is disputed by a party of required by the tribunal.
She added: “I came away feeling more traumatised, especially since I had always said I wanted to give oral evidence.
“[The MPTS’s] process is victim-hostile. This process doesn’t allow me to have a voice or even be treated as a victim by the MPTS.”
In its determination of the sanction, the MPTS tribunal said that Dr Hughes’ misconduct “was serious and warranted a significant response to mark its gravity.”
However, in determining that suspension was more appropriate than being banned from the profession, it highlighted mitigating factors including the medic’s admissions, apology and “well-developed insight, remediation and remorse”.
It said it accepted Dr Hughes’s lawyer’s submissions that this was a “nuanced” case and “distinguished from other cases of sexual misconduct where erasure was required.”
The panel also said that although Dr Hughes had “abused his professional position” and started an “improper relationship with a vulnerable patient”, it was found that he did not exploit her vulnerability.
In submissions, the GMC argued Dr Hughes had shown a “blatant disregard” for the guidance around inappropriate relationships. However, the MPTS panel accepted the doctor’s argument that he had “persuaded himself” that the guidance “permitted the relationship.”
During the hearing, it was revealed the medic is also facing undertakings by the Irish Medical Council.
The IMC would not confirm any details of the complaint; however, conditions listed on its register say: “Dr Hughes is subject to an undertaking that he will, inter alia, not afford any treatment to certain patient groups except under specified conditions.”
Rebecca Cox, co-founder of campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, which has campaigned against sexual assault within the NHS, said the group was “dismayed” to see “another weak sanction” from the MPTS.
She added: “Sadly, this fits with a trend of sanction decisions that do not reflect the severity of the case or distress caused to victims. The MPTS repeatedly fail victims of sexual misconduct and violence.”
Dr Cox said the lack of opportunity for victims to voice their testimony is an issue that has been raised many times.
Professor Carrie Newlands, consultant surgeon, co-lead for the working party on sexual misconduct in surgery at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, said: “This is yet another case of misconduct by a doctor against someone vulnerable with a significant power imbalance, and where despite the GMC recommending erasure, the MPTS have again given a lesser sanction.”
She said the suspension of a doctor for such “egregious behaviour” is incompatible with the GMC’s zero tolerance approach to sexual misconduct and incompatible with MPTS guidance, which states more serious action, such as being struck off, is likely to be appropriate in sexual misconduct cases.
In 2020, Patient A made a report to the police; however, in April 2021, the investigation was closed with no further no further.
Reacting to the tribunal’s suspension, a spokesperson for the GMC said it would consider whether there are grounds for appeal against the MPTS decision, but said the 12-month suspension was still a “significant sanction for Dr Hughes.”
Dr Hughes was approached for comment through his lawyers.
The MPTS declined to comment.
Newborn died after doctor used ‘vacuum-assisted’ delivery method, parents claim
No disciplinary sanction for doctor’s ‘grave’ failures in care of Martha Mills
Consultant should have referred teenager to intensive care, tribunal rules
Scandal-hit nursing regulator wrongly cleared 350 nurses to work in UK
Thousands of NHS patients denied breakthrough Alzheimer’s drugs
What we know about the Alzheimer’s drugs rejected for use on the NHS
