A vet, who placed bets on dogs for which he had responsibility, has been found to have breached the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s code of professional conduct.
A GP found guilty of disgraceful conduct for having sex with a teenage patient hasn’t been named and is still practising.
The doctor could be struck off by the Medical Council and banned from practising, but hasn’t been yet and has name suppression. The vet who was found guilty of a less serious offence has been named and already been struck off.
It may just be an unfortunate coincidence that these two cases are in the news at the same time and it may not be fair to compare them. They are different people, found guilty of different offences by different professional bodies at different times.
But it appears the Vet who was found guilty of a lesser offence has received a tougher penalty, at least so far, than the GP found guilty of a more serious offence.
I’d rather have a vet who’d done something he shouldn’t have at dog races still being able to treat animals than a doctor found guilty of having sex with a teenager still being able to treat people.
Homepaddock 
Agreed HP.
There is something radically wrong with the country when you look at these cases. What makes it worse is that no one seems inclined to rectify the situation.
LikeLike
I agree too. That is so unfair.
LikeLike
[…] A vet, who placed bets on dogs for which he had responsibility, has been found to have breached the Veterinary Council of New Zealand’s code of professional conduct. A GP found guilty of disgraceful conduct for having sex with a teenage patient hasn't been named and is still practising. The doctor could be struck off by the Medical Council and banned from practising, but hasn't been yet and has name suppression. The vet who was found guilty of a … Read More […]
LikeLike
There’s a sort of weird logic here.
The vet’s actions had the potential to rip off the dog racing punters whilst the docs actions were limited to just the young woman.
The vets disciplinary committee acted to protect an industry whilst the docs acted to protect the doctor.
In the great order of Mankind one must put the individual first, always.. but money talks louder in the here and now.
JC
LikeLike
Random thoughts
How old was the doctor at the time.
How vulnerable was he in his personal life.
How good a doctor is/was he.
what are his current practising circumstances
Was he entrapped, was a degree of consensuality present.
Was the evidence against him tested by cross examination.
25 years ago, a defense of “She was up for it” could have worked in a number of the less correct minds of the 80s, I reiterate, it was 25 years ago.
All my adult life I have been totally opposed to degradation of anyone, the taking of anything from anyone weaker by the use of power and/or position and avoiding consequences for the same reasons. This victim had recourse to the law but through ignorance and most likely a reluctance to act in the face of the doctors regard in the community, they were still gods then.
Mrs GD and I often reflect on the simpler times in the 60s when as part of a group of some dozen couples in a small country town would accept without reservation the offer of one of the say 20 young adults to babysit all the ankle biters, a full muster unusual as some would have a nanna to step in at their place, while the others went to the Rugby Club Ball, The Hunt Ball, a show, movie or similar. How would any of us bring a successful defense to a charge of kiddy fiddling or worse 30 / 40 years on by someone with an agenda or any other manufactured motive.
I found myself giving support to an acquaintance some 5 or 6 years ago who accused a male relative some 9 odd years older of sexual violation while in a position of care over her. It came down to a contest between a Possumn in the headlights vs an articulate, intelligent young woman with a possible Road to Damascus revelation as to an alternative interpretation of history and the whole thing left me somewhat troubled when a conviction resulted and he went to prison for what may have really been consensual intercourse. Her age was not a legal issue hence the charge of “while in his care”
I am not condoning the alleged actions of the Dr and I agree the different actions taken by the professional bodies is of concern but in the secret almost “star chamber” way these matters are dealt with, how can anything relating to justice be administered. We may really just be removing a very capable Dr from circulation that some/many patients would happily continue to be treated by even if they knew the supposed truth of an incident that happened a quarter of a century ago and being assessed in a very different social and legal environment. Not as criminal charges but under more flexible misconduct charges.
stone first sin cast without them Let the.
But the so called peers are not to be challenged and as I grow older and more and more people in good standing are brought down by revelations from their past that are only discovered and or brought to light with a more educated population who can instantly access information from OIA, The internet and rapid communications overlaid with incentives for mental and /or financial recompense just waiting for a lawyer with an agenda or time on their hands to run with.
LikeLike
I think I agree with GD here.
There is an “Salem Witchcraft” feel about these historical allegations.
What might the real truth be in some or most cases? The mere allegation is a killer and there is no physical evidence, just fallible human memory – liable to be rewritten intentionally or otherwise.
Money and attention maybe given to the accuser.
Its a worry – we should tread carefully here for surely injustice will follow if we don’t.
LikeLike
I note that there has been no police involvement here, which means that the charges do not involve criminal activity (ie rape) unlike the Vet whose betting on dogs was illegal (I think this is the case)
Of much more concern is that an allegation of rape was made against the doctor concerned, originally (the allegation of using drugs and nitrous oxide would certainly be construed that way by a court). This was later dropped, presumably because they could not be proved.
What worries me here is that, if the allegation of drug rape was true, that would imply extremely predatory behaviour on behalf of the doctor concerned. It seems highly unlikely that Mrs A. would be his sole victim, in which case where are all the others?
The absence of other complaints tends to imply that there may be a great deal of confabulation in this woman’s testimony i.e. that she is mistaken in at least this idea of date rape. To my mind it throws serious doubt on her testimony, unless we believe that he has managed to terrorise all his other victims into silence.
LikeLike
For me, Ms A’s story simply has the ring of truth. I recognise her description of a predator – she could not possibly have made up those convincing little details, unless she was extraordinarily aware and scheming.
Dr C’s expressions of affection appear genuine, and his expressions of self doubt inspire sympathy. But he sounds immature, even though he is not so young. I suspect that he has never had a fully formed relationship with a non-vulnerable adult female. I am not saying this doctor is a paedophile, but he reminds me of one.
I agree and disagree with MacDoctor. Yes, Dr C’s behaviour, as described, sounds determinedly predatory, and he should, if he really did what Ms A said he did, have other victims. I suspect he does. Naming him may bring forward others. He will not, by and large, have needed to terrorise his victims into silence. He will have chosen them more carefully than that, just as paedophiles do. Paedophiles who end up with a conviction tend to have something like 100 previous victims, most of whom have said nothing. I don’t know if anyone remembers Dr Morgan Fahy – he got away with his creepy, predatory behaviour for a very long time, and his victims were adults, not children. He was brought down by a single determined woman.
Gravedodger: Dr C was 32 at the time. It is true that times have changed, and certainly in the 70’s attitudes may have been different. But by 1985 they were not so different to how they are now (I was 24 then, and would not have seen Dr C’s behaviour as anything other than entirely unacceptable). I was certainly aware, even by 1983, of the complications of doctors having relationships with patients, even if genuinely consensual, let alone a 32 year old having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old patient who had been raped. It is surely obvious that there is something very wrong with that. I’m pretty sure that Dr C would not have ended up having any sort of relationship or sexual connection with a well balanced 16 year old from a protective, supportive family.
And if that had been your child, would you have been able to see anything alright about that at all?
LikeLike
Well the vet was struck off because the punishment was decided. As in the courts, there is a delay between judgement and sentencing.
In August the written decision will be delivered. He should then be struck off
It is never appropriate for a doctor to sleep with someone who is his current patient, not to pass them off to another doctor for the purpose of having sex with them
The power differential between the 32 year old doctor and the 16 year old patient far too vast. He knew better.
I doubt she confabulated anything, It happened – young male doctors were gods in those days. They still are now shagging their ways around the various echelons of nurses. But equal relationships between adults are a far different matter than doctor patient relationships.
It’s never ok to shag your 16 year old patient when you are the doctor.
LikeLike