Physicians, Patients, Sex and Chaperones: Rethinking Medical Regulation

The regulation of sexual misconduct is a challenging area for medical boards. Complaints alleging sexual abuse should always sound alarm bells. They touch on deeply personal matters, the evidence is highly contested, patients are often traumatized, physicians are naturally defensive and boards know that their decisions may be contested and exposed to media scrutiny. Care, sensitivity and fairness in regulatory decision-making is essential.One crucial challenge following allegations of sexual misconduct is deciding what, if any, interim action should be taken to protect patients and the public pending an investigation. Traditionally, medical boards have imposed chaperone conditions as an interim protective measure — permitting the physician to continue working, but with a condition on practice that should, in theory, protect patients. But some boards are now rethinking the traditional approach, and are instead imposing gender-based restrictions or suspension as interim protective measures.How should boards balance protection of patients, fairness to individual physicians, and maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and regulators, when handling such sensitive allegations? This paper examines “the forbidden zone” of sex with patients, notes recent research insights and describes contemporary context. Looking to Australia, it summarizes the findings of my 2017 report, “Independent Review of the Use of Chaperones to Protect Patients in Australia,”1 and explains the rationale for my recommendations, adopted by the national health practitioner regulator, to abandon the use of chaperones and respond to an old problem in new ways.For more than 2,000 years, it has been a fundamental tenet of medical ethics that physicians may not enter into sexual relationships with their patients. The Hippocratic Oath (circa 4th century BC) states that in their professional lives, physicians must abstain from “the seduction of females or males.” There is no place for sex in the patient-physician relationship, either in the guise of a “consensual” sexual relationship, or in the form of sexualized comments or behavior, or indecent or sexual assault. For good reason, it is sometimes referred to as “sex in the forbidden zone,” and compared with sexual abuse by clergy and teachers.2There are several reasons for the strict prohibition on sex in the patient-physician relationship.3 It is an abuse of the trust patients place in their physician; exploitation of the power imbalance between physician and patient; a safety issue, because patients subjected to sexual behavior in the course of therapy may suffer emotional and physical harm; a quality issue, because the physician’s judgment and objectivity is clouded; and a public confidence issue, because it undermines confidence that a consultation is purely for assessment, diagnosis and treatment purposes.Codes of ethics and professional guidelines have traditionally adopted a “zero tolerance” approach to sexual relationships with current patients, and have deprecated relationships with former patients, depending on the duration and nature of the prior professional relationship. Law and ethics set clear standards for informed consent to intimate examinations, and an examination without clinical justification is a sexual assault that may lead to criminal charges.Unsurprisingly, however, a small minority of practitioners fall foul of professional guidance and even the criminal law. The medical community has its share of sexual predators. More common are misguided physicians who fall in love with their patients and clumsy physicians who fail to explain the need for an intimate examination. Modern technology, with the ability to use social media to contact patients, also offers errant physicians more ways to breach professional boundaries.New research offers insights into the characteristics of physicians who sexually abuse4 patients. In the United States, DuBois et al., in an examination of 101 cases of sexual violations in medicine, found that the only highly consistent markers were male gender (100%), age > 39 (92%), not being board certified (72% of non-consensual sex cases) and examination of patients alone (85%) in nonacademic settings (94%).5 Alarmingly, 19% of cases of sodomy occurred with a chaperone, parent, nurse or other individual in the room with the patient-victim and physician.Discipline for sexual misconduct across the United States is highly variable. A study of 1,039 U.S. physicians reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank for sexual misconduct, 2003–2013, found that two-thirds of physicians with either sexual-misconduct-related clinical privileges actions or malpractice payments (both strong evidence that misconduct occurred) were not disciplined for sexual misconduct by state medical boards.6In Australia, a recent landmark study of 1,507 reports of sexual misconduct to health practitioner boards between 2011 and 2016 found that 75% of reports involved medical practitioners, psychologists, chiropractors and osteopaths, who comprise only 22% of the registered health practitioner workforce.7 The rate was higher for regional and rural than metropolitan practitioners, and 88% of complaints were about male practitioners.Two phenomena are important contemporary context. Investigative journalism has brought to light the hidden problem of sexual abuse in the health professions. And, in the #MeToo era, the willingness of victims of sexual abuse to speak up and seek redress, and the success of high-profile prosecutions, has led to profound changes in how the public, professions and authorities recognize and respond to this issue.In a series of articles in 2016, investigative journalists from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that two-thirds of physicians disciplined for sexual misconduct in Georgia were allowed to return to practice.8 The investigation widened to examine more than 100,000 medical board orders in 50 states relating to disciplinary action against physicians since 1999. The survey found that Georgia was not unusual, and that the system “too often protects doctors from accountability, leaving patients vulnerable.”9 The risk of multiple offending by a predatory physician was highlighted in the case of gymnastics sports physician Larry Nassar of Michigan State University.10 The media spotlight prompted many medical boards to review their handling of such cases.Since 2017, following publicity about multiple sexual abuse allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein, the #MeToo movement has gained a huge social media following around the world. There has been an unprecedented level of discussion in the print and social media about sexual abuse by individuals (predominantly male) in positions of power in the church, sports teams, the entertainment industry, workplaces and the health and legal professions.Authorities have increasingly been willing to prosecute even historic cases of alleged abuse. In Australia, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has had a major impact.11 In a series of reports, the Commission highlighted the prevalence of myths about reporting of sexual abuse and weaknesses in the traditional responses of authorities and the criminal justice system to allegations of sexual abuse, and noted the importance of trauma-informed approaches to such cases.These developments are all important context for recent major changes in the handling of sexual misconduct allegations by the Australian health practitioner regulation agency (Ahpra) and the Medical Board of Australia (MBA). As noted in my recent report: “The zeitgeist has changed, with victims more willing to speak up; recognition that sexual abuse by trusted professionals or people in positions of authority is less rare than previously assumed; intolerance of slow or ineffective responses by authorities to whom abuse is reported; increased sensitivity to the needs of victims; and growing awareness that the handling, investigation and determination of allegations of sexual abuse requires specialized skills and training.”12The catalyst for an independent review in Australia was media revelations that a neurologist accused of molesting a male patient, 19-year-old law student Tom Monagle, had been permitted to continue in practice for eight months, subject only to a condition that an approved chaperone be present for all consultations with male patients — even though criminal charges had been laid and another patient had made a similar complaint eight years previously, which had led to a caution.13 The neurologist was only suspended following a new complaint from a patient who alleged he had been indecently assaulted behind a pulled curtain while a chaperone was present.In August 2016, Mr. Monagle courageously told his story publicly.14 News media ran a headline story, “Dozens of doctors being watched due to sexual misconduct allegations,”15 and the Minister of Health in Victoria called for a national review of the use of chaperones for physicians accused of sexual misconduct.I was commissioned by Ahpra and the MBA to review whether, in cases of alleged sexual misconduct, chaperone conditions are effective to protect patients and appropriate given the importance of trust and informed consent in the patient-physician relationship. I was also asked to recommend changes to regulatory practice and law in order to better protect patients and the public.It is important to distinguish two different types of chaperone patients may encounter during a consultation: a chaperone as an observer for the physician and a chaperone mandated as a condition of the physician’s licence to practice. The chaperone as observer for the physician is present at the physician’s request, and is essentially a witness to protect the physician in the event of an allegation of improper behavior. The use of a chaperone in this way is regarded internationally as good medical practice for intimate examinations, given the obvious potential for misunderstanding.The mandated chaperone is present when a medical board, tribunal or court has required the presence of a chaperone during consultations with all patients, or with patients of a specified gender and/or age, as a condition of the physician’s practice. The requirement may follow alleged or proven sexual misconduct by the physician. It is intended to protect the patient from improper behavior. A patient cannot waive the presence of a mandated chaperone, since it is a condition of practice. If the patient doesn’t want the chaperone present, she or he will have to find another physician.In undertaking my review, I researched the topic extensively and consulted widely. After a public call for submissions, 45 submissions were received from patients, health practitioners, colleges, medical-defense organizations, health-complaint entities16 and regulators, state and territory health departments and other interested parties. I met with victims of sexual abuse by physicians, participated in a consumer focus group organized by the Health Issues Centre in Melbourne, and talked to chaperoned physicians, medical-defense organizations, colleges and medical board members.In researching the practice of medical boards internationally, I sought the views of board leaders at a special session during an international conference on medical regulation in September 2016.17 I also met with senior officials from medical boards from the General Medical Council (UK) and the Oregon Medical Board,18 and visited the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in British Columbia and Ontario and the Medical Council of New Zealand.Australia’s use of mandated chaperones mirrored regulatory interventions by other international medical boards to protect patients pending a disciplinary investigation or criminal prosecution. Medical boards in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand routinely impose a chaperone condition as an interim protection.However, within Australia, patient and health-professional views had shifted. I heard widespread skepticism about the effectiveness and appropriateness of chaperone conditions. Discussions with members of the public indicated that many people were unclear what the term meant. People described it as a quaint, old-fashioned and paternalistic term that does not appropriately describe the reason why the physician is required to have an observer present. They expressed a preference for the term “practice monitor,” which had been adopted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.The concerns about mandated chaperones went beyond semantics. People noted that in practice, chaperone conditions are not wholly effective to prevent being exposed to harm and, in some cases, sexually assaulted. As an abused patient told the news media in New Zealand, after a physician was convicted of sexual offences against patients, even with a chaperone present, “It’s trusting the wolf with the sheep.”19From a risk-reduction viewpoint, chaperone conditions seem logical. A closely observed practitioner is less likely to engage in inappropriate behavior. One imagines that for many practitioners, the shock of being subject to a notification will prevent any further sexual misconduct. But predatory physicians who have come to view patients as sexual objects may not be deterred by a safety mechanism that still leaves the physician in control. Sexualized behavior — which may be as subtle as the way a physician looks at a patient, or an intimate examination of dubious clinical necessity — may be undetectable by an observer.Other problems with mandated chaperones were commonly reported. The chaperone is often a practice nurse or other employee, in a subservient relationship with the chaperoned physician who employs her. The chaperone is usually untrained and unaware of the specific conduct she is supposed to be watching out for. Realistically, the chaperone cannot be watching all the time. The upshot is a situation where a predatory physician can evade the scrutiny of the chaperone.A significant proportion of alleged sexual misconduct involves physicians entering a sexual relationship with a patient. In the age of social media, most initiation of sexual contact by a practitioner is likely to occur by sending a text or Facebook message, outside the consultation room and often outside work hours. Such covert behavior is unlikely to be detected by a chaperone.My conclusions about the limited effectiveness of mandated chaperones were matched by my findings about their appropriateness. Patients are left in the dark about why a chaperone is required — if they did know the reasons, many patients would look for another physician. An astute patient may suspect that the physician has been accused of sexual impropriety, but many members of the public do not check the register of practitioners and would not appreciate why a chaperone is required. Certainly, from my observation of practice signs in two general practices in Melbourne, the sign was difficult to read in a patient waiting room area amidst multiple notices on display and was unlikely to be noticed.20The lack of information given to patients about the need and reasons for a mandated chaperone is the most significant flaw in the current system. There are two problems: The information given is very general, and leaves many patients with the impression that this is simply an audit or training requirement; and the person who makes the disclosure is the physician whose trustworthiness is at issue, a chaperone condition having been imposed because of alleged sexual misconduct. I concluded that the way the mandated chaperone system operated in Australia was far from transparent, contrary to one of the guiding principles of the national health practitioner regulatory scheme, that “the scheme is to operate in a transparent, accountable, efficient, effective and fair way.”21Other reasons emerged to cast doubt on the appropriateness of mandated chaperones. Patients noted the intrusiveness of a chaperone, whose presence may alter the physician-patient interaction through a reduction of trust in the an to or intimate examinations, and the of subtle emotional in A mandated chaperone is likely to be in any consultation with a with a due to the highly personal and nature of less obvious problems during my in The use of chaperones as a protective measure is to the health it is not in other or such as Chaperones are only in the health in a Health practitioners in the public health system are on while allegations of sexual misconduct are recognize their of to patients, and are sensitive to harm if allegations are review also significant concerns about the of with chaperone conditions. As noted by a community of an Australian national health practitioner board, the mandated chaperone system a of into a mechanism that does not community the medical profession expressed for the use of mandated while the need for consistent decision-making and the importance of A practitioner is proven no less than an individual accused of an The of justice that practitioners must have a fair to the case against physicians expressed about the of having to practice with a chaperone where misconduct is alleged but not since patients may that has members of medical boards also that the use of chaperone conditions patients to more risk by the from the regulatory I concluded that mandated chaperones public and always work very The regulatory was no for findings were The term is chaperones patients in the not informed are informed and are inappropriate in some such as are to prevent conditions do not that patients are from headline from my review was that the use of chaperones to protect patients — while allegations of sexual misconduct are — be by gender-based restrictions and and that as “practice be imposed only in cases, in to allegations of sexual misconduct, the allegation of sexual misconduct involves only a patient; and the if would not a criminal and the health practitioner has no notification or complaint the power imbalance in the patient-physician relationship, I was not by the that sex in the patient-physician relationship is simply about If a physician is accused of sexual abuse of a patient and is a to interim protective in my view it makes to of the gender-based sexual of the physician in imposing any 2017, the use of chaperones as an interim protective measure has been out in chaperones have all but from the regulatory though practice have been as a interim for use in cases, the MBA has imposed In cases where the MBA is a need for action to protect public health or or in the public a or suspension is imposed more A health practitioners have to and had a chaperone condition as an interim cases are the has been a in regulatory practice in have taken a different A review of the handling of sexual misconduct allegations by health professional colleges in Ontario the — that chaperone conditions be but be A by that abuse of a patient is about the abuse of authority and trust within the context of a health relationship, and not about the sexual of the health and that a to place the public a of at risk for This approach led to a in Ontario on the use of with chaperone conditions still that chaperones are required for consultations of the the United States, a of approaches is medical such as the Medical have the use of chaperones in of gender The recent of State Medical of the on Sexual a The notes that “the use of chaperones has been in some international and by state medical because of a that they the of safety and may to the the use of practice mandated chaperones by another for is evidence to a physician from practice but significant risk is to be The of has adopted from the report, for approaches to sexual misconduct by my 2017 report, I also made a series of to the handling of sexual misconduct cases in Australia, Ahpra in training for handling sexual misconduct cases and the investigation of allegations of sexual MBA highly specialized for sexual misconduct of be with to good and information public register of practitioners to disciplinary decisions and court and the MBA all my changes have of a new of the the Sexual to consistent decision-making across significant in training in handling sexual new of with in several states and and on the register of practitioners of to disciplinary decisions by and when has been an about any health practitioner and allegations have been proven — that no order is in a recent assessment, I concluded that “the changes made by Ahpra and the in to the chaperone review report, have been and The of the has been profound in of how of alleged sexual abuse are with by describes the of the Australian undertaking major in a area of medical old — where the public trusted — has There is growing skepticism about the community can trust the that are supposed to be and be their In the #MeToo era, is of some to the risk of sexual or assault. developments are in the problem of sexual abuse of patients by physicians and scrutiny of some practices in medical have to protection and for medical boards are their for handling sexual abuse an independent review for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of and the of State Medical of the on Sexual has described of an independent in to a public concerns about the effectiveness and appropriateness of mandated chaperones as an interim protective measure in cases of alleged sexual misconduct — and to review findings with major changes in practice, chaperone conditions in of gender-based and of who my and to and MBA and and Sexual for their

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.