“This is such a crock of .... "(well you can guess the rest), Al Pacino exclaims at the start of his brilliant speech in Scent of a Woman. He’s sitting next to and defending someone unjustly blamed. Right now, I feel the same way.
A patient, who shall remain anonymous, sought help from a psychiatrist after experiencing a traumatic sexual assault. Instead of receiving the support she needed, the psychiatrist proceeded over several months to further traumatize her by asking inappropriate questions and sending suggestive text messages.
Unfortunately for this patient, the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), comprised largely of the psychiatrist’s colleagues, decided to suspend him for just one year. Read more about the case here.
The Hippocratic oath, "First, Do No Harm," is fundamental to healthcare and means that every patient deserves safe and respectful care. Anything less is unacceptable. But in this case, it seems that principle was overlooked.
The tribunal’s decision to consider the psychiatrist’s financial losses since 2019—after he was dismissed from his private healthcare employer for sexual harassment—raises troubling questions. Did the tribunal also consider the pain and suffering of the patient? She came to the psychiatrist for help, but instead, her trauma was compounded. The tribunal’s decision essentially prioritized the perpetrator’s financial hardship over the victim’s ongoing distress. This is a troubling oversight, where the victim’s suffering was disregarded in favor of financial concerns.
So, where does a patient go for recourse in situations like this?
The MMC typically handles medico-legal cases, which often involve negligence. However, in this instance, the actions were premeditated and occurred over a prolonged period. The Disciplinary Board report cites over 20 text messages, confirmed as lewd in nature, including images of genitalia sent by the doctor to his patient.
We will never fully know the emotional toll this took on the patient, but it’s reasonable to assume she felt even more devastated. The very person she turned to for help—a healthcare professional—was the one who caused her further harm. Healthcare professionals are generally held in high esteem by the public, trusted with our health and well-being. This trust was clearly violated in this case. And these professionals occupy a position of esteem in society. Doctors and health professionals tend to score especially highly on public opinion surveys of trust.
Despite all the talk of patient safety, the MMC has effectively given a slap on the wrist to a doctor who abused the trust placed in him by a vulnerable patient. With a one-year suspension, the psychiatrist will be back to practicing in just a few months, continuing to see patients.
So, where do we go from here? Would you trust a healthcare professional to care for you or your loved ones after such a decision?
As a WHO-trained patient advocate working with healthcare professionals globally, I am appalled by this ruling. Many respected colleagues I’ve worked with, both locally and internationally, are equally disturbed by the implications of this decision for the sacred relationship between doctor and patient.
The MMC board has much to explain. As the protectors of the medical profession, they have failed in this instance. The very essence of what they claim to uphold—patient safety—has been undermined. With their motto of "safeguarding patients and guiding doctors" proudly displayed on their website, one has to wonder whether it's time to revise it. This decision makes it clear: the financial well-being of doctors seems to outweigh the safety and dignity of the patients they serve.
