Top doctor cleared of patient sex

By ANGELA GREGORY

A former chairman of the Medical Association has been cleared of a charge of disgraceful conduct after becoming intimately involved with one of his patients.

The district court decision in the case of Dr Anton Wiles has appalled Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson, who said it made a mockery of the zero-tolerance policy on doctor-patient sexual relations.

Mr Paterson said his office would appeal against Judge Margaret Lee's decision, which he said sent the wrong signal to the medical profession and was out of keeping with international ethical standards.

Judge Lee's finding supports an earlier decision in favour of the Ellerslie doctor by the Medical Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal.

The case went to the court after an appeal from the Director of Proceedings.

The tribunal last March suppressed its decision, but Dr Wiles and Mr Paterson succeeded in lifting the suppression, allowing the reasoning behind the verdict to be revealed.

Dr Wiles, who did not seek name suppression, could not be contacted last night, but his lawyer, Harry Waalkens, said the decision had been welcomed.

"He is relieved. He's been a victim through this whole thing ... He has suffered immensely."

Mr Waalkens said the decision recognised the human frailties of both parties.

And it underscored how unrealistic the zero-tolerance policy was.

"Why discipline a very good and respected doctor?"

In January 1998, Dr Wiles, then chairman of the Medical Association, began meeting one of his female patients, who was also a close friend, on top of Mt Wellington.

During one of those meetings, Dr Wiles told the woman they could not have a relationship while she was still his patient, even though she had not consulted him for three months.

They had already indulged in some physical contact, and the woman agreed to transfer to another doctor.

They had sexual intercourse within a few months of her changing doctor, and the relationship continued throughout 1998. It ended in May 1999, when the woman's husband discovered the affair.

Judge Lee said the medical profession had long recognised that sexual behaviour between doctors and patients was unacceptable.

The Medical Council had issued policy statements saying such behaviour was an abuse of power.

But Judge Lee said the council might be overstating its position if it was defining sexual violation to include sexual activity between consenting adults who happened to have a doctor/patient relationship.

It seemed that could possibly be because of "vestiges of a paternalistic attitude which sees women as childlike beings unable to think and act independently for themselves and needing protection for their own good", she said.

Judge Lee said to varying degrees all professional relationships depended on trust. The medical profession differed in that clinical examination exposed the patient to a greater potential for sexual abuse.

But Judge Lee said culpability depended on the degree to which the patient's emotional dependence was exploited.

"In the present case there is no suggestion that Dr Wiles misused medical information or that he sought to exploit Ms Y's vulnerability.

Judge Lee said the medical tribunal had found for Dr Wiles in a four-to-one majority decision.

It said his relationship with the woman was unwise in the extreme, but his actions fell just short of the threshold for disciplinary action in part because he and the woman were already close friends.