Nurse had affair with patient's husband

Photo / NZ Herald

A registered nurse has been found guilty of professional misconduct for having an affair with the husband of a cancer patient she was treating.

The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal called for submissions on a suitable penalty and suppressed all the names involved in the case.

The tribunal was told that the relationship between the nurse, Ms Y, and the patient's husband, Mr H, took place between August and September of 2007 and in 2009. Ms Y met the patient, Ms G, following her surgery for lung cancer in June 2007.

Ms G told the tribunal she discovered her husband's affair with Ms Y in January 2009 and said she felt she had exposed her soul to her nurse who had intimate knowledge about her life, husband and children.

Mr H met Ms Y for the first time as his wife's nurse. He said he felt there had been an attraction and called her and asked to meet. He admitted that about three weeks after his wife first met her nurse, he began the "intense" affair, though it had now ended.

In her defence, Ms Y said she was relieving for the regular community liaison nurse and her role was only temporary. She said she was not guilty of professional misconduct, just a morally incorrect decision.

She said Mr H had told her he was separated from Ms G when he asked her for a date. She said that to her regret she agreed to meet him but denied she was involved in the ongoing healthcare of his wife.

Ms Y said her relationship with Mr H had caused a lot of unhappiness and upset to people but she believed she was providing ethical treatment.

The tribunal said it considered two particulars to the charge. First, that Ms Y engaged in a sexual relationship with Mr H at a time when she had met Ms G and provided her health services.

Second, that Ms Y continued to participate in a relationship through 2008/2009 at a time when Ms G was receiving ongoing treatment for her cancer.

The tribunal also considered whether a relationship by a nurse with a patient's husband in circumstances where there was brief contact with a patient would be seen as professional misconduct.

The tribunal found Ms Y guilty of professional misconduct but found the second particular could not be established as by that time Ms Y did not have the kind of involvement in Ms G's care as in 2007.

- NZPA