Disciplinary Action Against UK Health Professionals for Sexual Misconduct: A Matter of Reputational Damage or Public Safety?

C. Gallagher, Jeta Thaci, Georgina Saadalla, Nasteha A Mohamed, Murwo M. Ismail, Thelma Gossel, Melissa Attopley
{"title":"Disciplinary Action Against UK Health Professionals for Sexual Misconduct: A Matter of Reputational Damage or Public Safety?","authors":"C. Gallagher, Jeta Thaci, Georgina Saadalla, Nasteha A Mohamed, Murwo M. Ismail, Thelma Gossel, Melissa Attopley","doi":"10.30770/2572-1852-107.4.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The regulation of health care professionals in the United Kingdom (UK) falls under the authority of one of nine General Councils, each of which has a statutory duty to ensure the fitness to practice of a subdivision of these professionals. Among the matters that may call fitness to practice into question are deviations from published standards of behavior, which include the maintenance of appropriate sexual boundaries by practitioners. The aim of this article is to examine how the common fitness-to-practice process utilized by General Councils deals with registered health care professionals who have exceeded these boundaries.\n Deductive thematic analysis was carried out on cases involving academic misconduct among registrants of the General Medical Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council, using themes derived from each council’s standards for registrants and guidance for disciplinary panel members.\n While each of these four cases involved some form of sexually motivated misconduct, the facts in each case were significantly different; however, not only was the outcome the same, but the rationale was similar in each instance. While the protection of the health, safety and well-being of the public may be considered in cases involving sexual misconduct, the need to maintain public and professional confidence in their respective professions is sufficient grounds alone to end the careers of health professionals who engage in sexual misconduct.","PeriodicalId":91752,"journal":{"name":"Journal of medical regulation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of medical regulation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30770/2572-1852-107.4.7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The regulation of health care professionals in the United Kingdom (UK) falls under the authority of one of nine General Councils, each of which has a statutory duty to ensure the fitness to practice of a subdivision of these professionals. Among the matters that may call fitness to practice into question are deviations from published standards of behavior, which include the maintenance of appropriate sexual boundaries by practitioners. The aim of this article is to examine how the common fitness-to-practice process utilized by General Councils deals with registered health care professionals who have exceeded these boundaries. Deductive thematic analysis was carried out on cases involving academic misconduct among registrants of the General Medical Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, and Nursing and Midwifery Council, using themes derived from each council’s standards for registrants and guidance for disciplinary panel members. While each of these four cases involved some form of sexually motivated misconduct, the facts in each case were significantly different; however, not only was the outcome the same, but the rationale was similar in each instance. While the protection of the health, safety and well-being of the public may be considered in cases involving sexual misconduct, the need to maintain public and professional confidence in their respective professions is sufficient grounds alone to end the careers of health professionals who engage in sexual misconduct.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对英国卫生专业人员性不端行为的纪律处分:名誉损害还是公共安全?
在联合王国(联合王国),保健专业人员的管理属于九个总理事会之一的权力,每个总理事会都有法定义务确保这些专业人员的一个细分部门适合执业。在这些问题中,可能会对实践的适应性提出质疑,其中包括偏离已公布的行为标准,其中包括从业者对适当性界限的维护。本文的目的是研究总理事会使用的从健康到实践的通用流程如何处理超出这些界限的注册卫生保健专业人员。对总医务委员会、总牙科委员会、总药物委员会和护理和助产委员会的注册人员涉及学术不端行为的案件进行了演绎主题分析,使用的主题来自每个委员会的注册标准和纪律小组成员指南。虽然这四个案件都涉及某种形式的性动机不当行为,但每个案件的事实都有很大不同;然而,不仅结果是相同的,而且每次的基本原理都是相似的。虽然在涉及不当性行为的案件中可以考虑保护公众的健康、安全和福祉,但保持公众和专业人员对各自职业的信心的必要性本身就足以成为终止从事不当性行为的卫生专业人员职业生涯的理由。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regulating Professions: The Emergence of Professional Self-Regulation in Four Canadian Provinces COVID-denial Invites License Revocation in the UK Regulatory Body Perspectives on Complaints and Disciplinary Action Processes for Health Professionals Physician Well-Being and Patient Safety: The Crossroads to the Best in Medicine What Could (Or Should) Be the Regulatory Response to the Wicked Problem of Climate Change?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1