Patient disputes 'common'

By ANGELA GREGORY

Communication breakdowns between doctors and patients are not uncommon, two Auckland GPs have told a medical tribunal hearing four charges of disgraceful and professional conduct against a doctor.

The Medical Council's complaints assessment committee has accused the Auckland doctor of performing an unnecessary internal examination on a teenager, failing to fully inform her or take account of her distress, and breaching patient confidentiality.

The 19-year-old woman alleges that she repeatedly told the doctor she was a virgin, and that he tried to arouse her sexually.

But the doctor had said she kept changing her story about her sexual history, and he never touched her in an inappropriate manner.

Their identities have been suppressed.

General practitioner Thomas Marshall said in written evidence to the Medical Practitioners' Disciplinary Tribunal that disputes between doctors and patients over how a consultation proceeded and what was said were not uncommon.

Dr Marshall also said that in this instance the doctor was justified to consider and investigate the possibility that the woman had a sexually transmitted disease.

There could have been a grave risk of infertility if such a disease was left undiagnosed and untreated.

A GP who had worked with the doctor said the situation at the clinic that evening was ripe for misunderstanding.

A young patient who was very tense and uncomfortable could easily have misinterpreted what was going on, he said.

The GP said the doctor had appeared confused and puzzled when the complaint was laid.

Earlier, under cross-examination, the doctor defended the use of the word "playing" when describing his examination of the woman's pelvic area.

The doctor said the word reflected his reduced ability in English, which was his third language.

He also said that explained why he sometimes used "My dear" when addressing the lawyer acting for the complaints committee, Kristy McDonald.

The doctor denied that he had performed an internal examination before he called a nurse to chaperone a smear test.

He also denied touching the woman inappropriately and without a glove after the nurse had left.

The doctor said he regretted that he might have commented during the consultation that it was unusual for a 19-year-old to be a virgin.

He had mentioned the woman's name to his wife, and the road she lived in, but denied that was a breach of patient confidentiality.

"I was just letting my wife know what was happening."

His wife said in written evidence that she had not warned her husband she was planning to go to the woman's home.

She accepted it had been a mistake and regretted doing it.

Under cross-examination, she said her children were in the car when she visited the house.

"I went there to let them know my husband would not do that."