"just a one off" so we won't strike him off for rape

[RedToothBrush]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o

In part 1004 of why the medical profession hates women and why women don't trust the medical profession.

Bloody hell.

I'm speechless.

If you've read the actual mpts report it's a very click-bait headline.

The doctor involved not only wasnt convicted of rape, they werent even charged.

They self referred to the gmc when they were arrested.

The complainant issued 4 statements over the course of a week, the first alledged an assault, the 4th (written by a third party) was the first to alledge rape and appears to be followed by a blackmail request via a 3rd party for £20,000 to make the complaint go away...

Its certainly way more complex than the headline....

That said, I still cant work out how they came to the conclusion that some kind of assault probably ocurred (balance of probability (civil) rather than beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) burden of proof) but didnt impose a harsher sanction.

I've read it.
They still concluded that he had.
If they thought he had why do they think it's in the interests of the profession for him to keep practicing!?

Unbefuckinglievable.

Oh, that's all right then 🙄

I’m going to look for the article somewhere other than the BBC ..

The old n+1 in the flesh.

I did a thread on men using manslaughter to get away with murder last week. Feels like you need to be a repeat offender rapist to get "taken seriously".

Oh well that's all right then. I'm sure we wouldn't want lives ruined, after all it was just a one-off. Sure the victim will be comforted by that.

Ironic isn't it, how a man ruins a woman's life by raping her, an experience she will carry for life. But the only concern is that it doesn't spoil his life by experiencing consequences for what he did to her.

Women have no value in this society. None. And people wonder why so many teenaged girls are so desperate to not have to grow up to be women, and to try and identify into the group where respect and safety is. While everyone nicely prattles that no, no one knows what sex anyone is, and there's definitely no obvious binary.

Glowing testimonials from colleagues always help.

The GMC no longer acts as judge, jury & executioner for errant doctors. It's the independent Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service that actually hears the case with the GMC instructing prosecuting council. MPTS case reports are not a verbatim account like a court transcript but are more akin to a written judgment with quite a lot of personal information redacted e.g nobody other than the defendant is named.

Here is the MPTS report for this case & it's obvious as previously noted the story is more complicated than the headline implies. The GMC is appealing the lenient sentence.

www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-aloaye-foy-yamah-10-jan-25.pdf

Maybe not a one off if you consider inappropriate behaviour https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/blackpool-doctor-accused-of-behaving-in-sexually-motivated-way-towards-patient-4804886

If it's the same person she was his patient. If it's not the same person it's a repeat offence. I wonder why the reports are leaving this out? (I have checked there is no other doctor with that name on the medical register).

That’s earlier reporting of the same allegation.

So she was a patient?

Ok read some of the decision.

The BBC is wrong to say "However the panel stopped short, stating that Dr Foy-Yamah had not "abused his position of trust as a doctor" because the victim was not a patient" The earlier reporting states that the victim was a patient because he arranged for a blood test. He wasnt in charge of her care but he had got himself involved and he didnt record the test in her notes because he knew he shouldnt be doing it.

He also changed his statements, admitting to it at one point.

That is difficult - the CPS felt there was insufficient evidence to charge. So he is innocent until proven guilty. That is how the law works.

I am no apologist for rapists, but if he was not charged then that is that.

I’ve staggered through most of the report: hard going.

I don’t think Ms A was DrFA patient in the usual sense of the word. She seems to have been a trainee practioner who was staying in his house before taking an exam.

Dr F A sent bloods off for ‘testing’ ‘without her knowledge/ permission’ ( maybe for HIV?) which makes her technically his ‘patient’. ( though how did he get the blood without her knowledge, if not consent?) This all happened in 2018 so some difficulty in establishing what happened, especially since the complaint ‘s account seems to have gone through four versions, at least one with third party ( not legal) intervention.

I am NOT an apologist, but this does seem to be a very murky business, with a lot of other medics involved in both sides. Difficult to arrive at a considered conclusion, I wouldn’t like to have to sit on that panel.

As Dr qualified in 1997, I suspect early retirement will be the outcome.

I agree. I dont want professional bodies adjudicating rape- that is a serious crime and a matter for the courts. His lack of professionalism - treating this woman without noting it in the records, the general shadiness with changed statements etc- the tribunal can deal with because it pertains to his work.

No not being charged by the police just means there is not sufficient evidence of guilt. Standards are different in criminal and civil cases, a civil case is decided on the balance of probabilities.

Qualified in 1997, he would have been 23+ so probably 51-55 now and the young woman sitting exams so could be any age from maybe 16 to 25.

As for blood tests without her knowledge - draw blood saying it's for one test then do more tests, one never mentioned to her. Not unusual to have more than one lot of blood taken but if she was not explicitly told he was carrying out, say a HIV test or test for STDs it's still without consent.

The panel didnt apply any standard beyond it was their judgement.

They specifically mention that neither the criminal nor civil standards are applicable.

Still begs the question how even with whatever standard of certainty they can say an assaultntook place, and come out with such a lenient sanction.

This is about trust is the profession as well here - it has implications.

If you are allocated this doctor and know that this body have deemed him likely to have done it on the balance of probably, how the fuck are you supposed to feel?!

If you make that judgement, you need to understand what that means to patients. And how patients are going to feel if they know or they somehow find out later after the fact.

If the body have the jurisdiction to make such a big call, then it needs to be dealt with, with that level of seriousness. You can't just go, well we think he did it but we aren't going to take responsibility and make sure our patients have complete confidence in doctors and are never going to face a doctor we think is a rapist. You either just go along with how the CPS have called it OR you act in saying take this at civil level and in such cases with a balance of probably we will centre patients rather than effectively acknowledging a problem and then going 'oh we think it was rape but it was only a bit of rape it doesn't matter THAT much. We don't think it's the right type of rape which is serious enough to think of patient confidence and emotional wellbeing first. It's only women who might have a problem with it, and what do they matter. As long as they have a doctor, who cares if they are a little bit rapey?'.

It's the absolute dismissal of centring patients that's astonishing.