In NSW, a case involved a dental practitioner who commenced a short term sexual relationship with his patient for about six months. The relationship was active during and beyond the course of the dental treatment. The patient subsequently made a complaint to the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) (similar to the Office of the Health Ombudsman in Queensland) once the relationship had ended. The practitioner phoned the patient asking her to withdraw the complaint.The Tribunal found the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct, noting that his oral evidence showed a lack of insight into his conduct and a lack of concern about the impact of his actions on the patient.
The HCCC prosecuted the practitioner before NCAT. The Tribunal found that the practitioner had engaged in a sexual relationship with a female patient who was especially vulnerable, had failed to refer the patient to another practitioner for completion of root canal therapy treatment before terminating his treatment of the patient and that he had repeatedly contacted the patient in an attempt to influence her to withdraw her complaint against him.
The Tribunal cancelled the practitioner’s registration and ordered that he is not eligible to re-apply for registration for a period of 1 year.
During the hearing an argument was made that there was no prohibition in the Dental Board of Australia’s Code of Conduct against a dentist having a sexual relationship with a patient. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected that narrow approach, and instead looked at the Code and other published professional standards guidance on the issue of boundary crossing. The Tribunal was unequivocal in its view of the obligations of a dentist in avoiding boundary crossing, stating that;
- dentists have no lesser standard of conduct than other health professionals in managing professional boundaries;
- the duty to ensure that a sexual relationship with a patient does not happen is a paramount one for the dentist;
- this paramount duty is not negated by the patient’s conduct, including whether the patient consented or initiated the sexual contact and those factors are no a defence to the standard; and
- the vulnerability of the patient is not the determining factor in escalating the seriousness of the complaint.