A Hampstead doctor who prescribed drugs to her boyfriend claiming his weight was a “medical emergency” without actually telling him she was a doctor has been suspended for another six months.
Dr Josevania Martins, who runs a private gynaecology and fertility clinic in Hampstead, was first handed a nine-month suspension in October 2025 for prescribing Ozempic and Wegovy to the man she was dating, named only as “Mr B” – in a breach of General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines.
At the time, she defended her actions as “compassionate” and in the man’s best interests because his need to lose weight was a “medical emergency”, though she hid the fact she was a doctor from him, including by refusing to let him come to her house.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found she had gone as far as to invent the name of a clinic in order to maintain her story – even as she used her professional status to source the diabetic treatment drugs.
Upon realising that Dr Martins was using a fake name on dating apps, Mr B reported her to the GMC. The independent medical tribunal then suspended the doctor to protect the public and to give her time to reflect.
As the ban was due to expire in July, Dr Martins had hoped to return to her practice. But following her review, she was suspended for another six months after a panel was not satisfied that it would not happen again.
During her October misconduct hearing, the tribunal found the doctor had hurt her “unusual” case by not apologising for her dishonesty in the first place and “showed no insight” into the consequences of her actions on the medical profession.
Though she eventually acknowledged that her emotional involvement with Mr B risked blurring personal and professional boundaries, Dr Martins tried to argue that there was no doctor/patient relationship between them. She also said there was no evidence she meant to mislead anyone and denied that any of her actions amounted to serious misconduct.
During the July 2026 review, a panel judged that Dr Martins had expressed “sincere remorse” and accepted that her actions were unethical, crossed clinical and personal boundaries, and had a wider impact on her profession. But the tribunal ruled her argument in favour of lifting the ban too “legalistic and theoretical” and lacked a “practical demonstration of her learning”.
“[Dr Martins] has reflected on the practical issues of why the guidance says she should not have done what she did but has not sufficiently articulated why she did what she did and why she would not do such actions again,” the panel ruled.
This meant there was still a risk “in terms of public confidence and the need to uphold professional standards”, the review concluded.
Another review will be held shortly before Dr Martins’ six-month suspension period expires in January 2027.
.jpeg?w=600)
