LIABILITY OF PHYSICIANS, THERAPISTS AND OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONALS FOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT WITH PATIENTS

Liability of Physicians, Therapists, and other Health Professionals for Sexual Misconduct with Patients

 

The role of health care providers has constantly been presented in the past and existing literature. In the work of  (1993), they highlighted the possible liabilities in which medical professionals might encounter the moment they engage in a behavior characteristic of sexual misconduct. Although the work has been instituted within the context of the United States, it attempts to address a more general perspective on the subject under consideration. This is reflected in the actual body of the study, liability for sexual misconduct, which constitutes the bulk of the discussion. The study addressed the therapist-patient relationship and the liabilities on which the medical practitioner is subject to undergo in the context of sexual misconduct. Specifically, it took on the common law doctrines in which sexual misconduct is brought about.         

 

Based on the discussion, the makeup of the therapist-patient relationship is intricate. As a fiduciary relationship, it has its foundation in common trust and assurance. The physician is compelled and obligated, in good faith, to carry out his or her responsibilities at the extent of understanding, expertise, and principles appropriate to the medical profession all together. The physician corresponds to the public as owning greater knowledge, deserving of the trust of the people, and compelled take actions in the welfare of patients. The patient, alternatively, goes into the relationship at his or her most defenseless instant. The physical and psychological interests of the patient are anchored upon the physician’s capability. Thorough and comprehensive physical tests in conjunction with the patient’s private disclosures and perspectives frequently go together with most lines of treatment. The patients’ susceptibility mixed with their understandable reliance on the physician to cure their illnesses leaves the physician in a spot of ascendancy or authority. It is this situation, or virtual disproportion of power in the connection, which has brought about to the norm that having sexual relations with an existing patient is deemed unethical.

 

The technical discussions regarding the common law doctrines such as negligence, fiduciary duty, negligent infliction of stress, intentional torts, breach of contract/implied warranty and spousal claims were relatively brief. However, the employment of previous cases representing such doctrines significantly helped in comprehending such technical terms.  Moreover, the liabilities presentation with regards to the employer has also provided significant information regarding their existing duties. The work of  (1993) implicated that the employer might also be directly liable for the conduct of their employees. This is especially true in settings such as hospitals wherein a huge number of medical practitioners are required to take care of a much larger number of patients. The liability of the employers regarding their negligence with regards to the employees has similarly provided extra prevention efforts in keeping medical practitioners away from engaging in sexual misconduct towards their patients.      

 

The proscription in opposition to sexual relationships with patients originated hundreds of years to the Hippocratic Oath. And for the reason of the tough and frequently compound emotions induced by the therapist-patient relationship, it is not exceptional or uncharacteristic that sexual attraction involving those involved builds up. This sexual attraction, which of its own accord may not be injurious to the relationship, can beneath the precise circumstances bring about sexual relationship. A sexual relationship is perceived to be as rewarding the physician’s desires at the patient’s cost. Impartiality of treatment is misplaced, or at any rate put at risk, by situating the physician’s concentration to a different place. The researcher concurred that the effects of a therapist-patient relationship are generally unconstructive or detrimental to the patient.

 

In the work of  (1993) has shown the role of the government in this kind of behavior coming from its medical professionals. Although it has been mainly a discussion on the existing state in the US, the mention of existing criminal laws and civil laws reveals that government institutions are looking into such matters of abuse and exploitation. Another issue in this aspect is that the discussion is based primarily on the context of the therapist as a medical practitioner. One reason that comes to mind is that the role of a therapist in the medical setting has not been deeply entrenched legally, as compared to those other health care providers such as doctors and nurses.

 

Nonetheless, the position of the paper with regards to the behavior of physicians and other healthcare providers has been clear and understandable. The study has presented that these individuals are bestowed with a power to public with such enormity. And in this context, this kind of power and authority brought about by the fact that human life depended on their skills and competence, great sense responsibility is entailed. Medical practitioners have been highly regarded in society. They have been deemed as among the protectors of the welfare of the public, this esteem should not be taken so lightly or should be used in behaviors marred by perversion and subsequent abuse.    

 

References

Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com