A recent GOC Fitness to Practise Case, July 9 to 14, made the national press. In typically salacious style The Sun reported ‘PANTS RAP …optician faces being struck off after he washed his colleague’s knickers and stretched them to make them “look enormous” then hung them on a line for “all to see”.’ The Sun went on ‘[…] said it was just a joke but now faces being struck off. He also sent her a shirtless selfie of him eating chocolate. But a hearing was told she replied calling it “awesome”… She had also sent him pictures of herself in bed… He denies any sexual motive…the case continues.’
If it wasn’t so serious such allegations would be laughable. What has any of this got to do with patients, protection of the public, an optician’s competence or fitness to practice?
Part of the original GOC allegations were: ‘The Council alleges that you… behaved inappropriately towards Ms A in that: … you: i. washed Ms A’s clothes without her knowledge or consent; ii. hung up Ms A’s clothes in a way that deliberately drew attention to her underwear; … 2. In or around November 2016, you told Mr B that sexually intimate contact between yourself and Ms A had taken place which: a. was untrue; and b. you knew to be untrue.’
The Sun neatly summarises the major facts of the case, facts that took five days to establish, in a case that took 18 months to come to hearing. It is pleasing the time from initial complaint to hearing has come down (though still too long recently it averaged three years) however, aspects of this case are deeply disturbing.
The Sun prominently mentioned the defendant’s employer, whose name may be tarnished when the case has nothing to do with them, Ms A never having worked there, and the alleged offences clearly taking place outside of work.
Surely the employer should have been granted the same anonymity as the complainant Ms A, and tell-tale witness Mr B. In cases where the defendant is found not to be impaired in terms of their fitness to practice and does not receive any sanction is it fair that their name is publicised, when the accusers remain anonymous?
One has to wonder whether this case would have gone forward if a woman had washed a man’s pants, hung them on the line and sent a picture of them to him. And one wonders what other prejudices are inadvertently taking place. Mr B’s testimony that the defendant had been sexually intimate with Ms A is based on a comment that they ‘had done everything under the sun except sexual intercourse’. But what does that actually mean?
Certainly if you are a typical white British citizen, of little faith, and under a certain age, then this leaves little to the imagination. But what if you are not of a culture where relationships precede sex, and sex precedes marriage? What if you expect an arranged or semi-arranged marriage and build your relationship afterwards? In those circumstances doing everything under the sun might entail having days out, taking a walk, going shopping, etc. And so it seems was the case here.
A quick scan of fitness to practice cases and patient complaints to the OCCS demonstrates that communication breakdown is at the heart of most of them. We find patients who go blind because they don’t appreciate the seriousness of their condition or the urgency of their referral, or contact lens wearers who get sight threatening keratitis because they don’t understand the importance of compliance.
In professional terms it is worth noting that if the message doesn’t get there, then it is the sender’s responsibility. The sender should ensure the message is transmitted in a way that is understood by the recipient. This may involve repeating oneself, saying things different ways, giving information in writing, and giving the patient a copy of the referral letter for any avoidance of doubt. Certainly we should ensure we communicate well.
But in cases like this where there is no risk to patients, while communications may have been ill judged, and at some point impaired by alcohol, one can’t help feel that the complaint should be directed to the police or independent arbitrators rather than the GOC.
After a year-and-a-half of stress and uncertainty, and tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds of legal and other costs, for what can be best summarised as a joke in bad taste, and a misunderstanding, the defendant now has to re-build his life.
The five day hearing is perhaps best summarised by US Vietnam War spokesman Robert McLoskey: ‘I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.’
Don’t let it happen to you.