UK Doctors Guilty of Sexual Misconduct Continue Practising Amid Weak Sanctions, Research Finds

Published: 19 September ‘2025. The English Chronicle Desk

New research has revealed alarming inconsistencies in the way UK doctors found guilty of sexual misconduct are sanctioned, highlighting systemic weaknesses in medical disciplinary processes and raising concerns about patient safety and public confidence. Despite recommendations from the General Medical Council (GMC) that some doctors be struck off the medical register, nearly a quarter have been allowed to continue practising following suspensions, according to an analysis conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS).

The study examined 222 new Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) tribunal cases between August 2023 and August 2024. Of the 46 cases of sexual misconduct proven during this period, the tribunal imposed the GMC-recommended sanctions in 35 instances. However, in 11 cases, doctors who had been deemed by the regulator to warrant erasure were instead suspended for varying periods, and in no instance was a stricter sanction applied than recommended. This discrepancy has led experts to question whether current disciplinary mechanisms are sufficiently protecting patients and ensuring professional standards.

Mei Nortley, a consultant vascular surgeon and lead author of the research, underscored the gravity of the findings, stating: “We hope this study aids the MPTS to reflect on whether it delivers its aims of protecting the public, ensuring doctors meet professional standards, and promoting public confidence in the medical profession. Allowing rapists, sexual predators, and those who use manipulation and coercion to return as practising doctors brings this into question.”

The research also highlighted patterns of systemic abuse within the profession. All perpetrators were male doctors, with more than 80 percent occupying positions of authority over patients or junior staff. Several cases involved repeated offences against multiple victims, indicating that misconduct was not limited to isolated incidents but, in many cases, formed part of a pattern of exploitation.

The findings are supported by a related paper published in the British Medical Journal, which cited high-profile cases illustrating the inconsistencies and perceived leniency of tribunal sanctions. One notable example involved an acute medical consultant found guilty of rape, who was suspended for only 12 months rather than being struck off, with the panel describing the incident as a “one-off event.” Another case involved a doctor who groomed a vulnerable patient from the age of 14; despite clear evidence of predatory behaviour, the tribunal suspended him for 12 months, citing his “insight, remediation, and remorse” as justification for not imposing erasure.

Prof Vivien Lees, Vice-President of the RCS, warned that such inconsistencies risk leaving perpetrators in positions of power, potentially endangering patients and colleagues. “The findings show deeply concerning inconsistencies in how sanctions are applied,” she said. “This risks leaving perpetrators in power and eroding trust in the profession, which is entirely unacceptable.” The research calls for “urgent and major” reforms to the system, including enhanced training for tribunal panel members, increased support for victims, and measures to reduce reliance on subjective evidence when determining sanctions.

Dr. Chelcie Jewitt, co-founder of the advocacy group Surviving in Scrubs, echoed these concerns, highlighting that sanctions often appear to prioritise protecting doctors’ careers over safeguarding patients and staff. “The findings of this study shine a light on a culture in which perpetrators may be shielded from accountability,” she said. “The consequences of allowing sexual predators to remain in practice cannot be overstated, both for the individuals affected and for the wider trust in healthcare institutions.”

The GMC, responsible for investigating complaints and referring serious cases to the MPTS, maintains that it takes a zero-tolerance approach to sexual misconduct. A spokesperson said: “In cases of sexual misconduct, we will often ask for the doctor to be struck off the medical register. Where we feel the sanctions applied by the independent tribunal are too lenient, we can and do appeal. A significant proportion of our appeals are successful and result in stronger sanctions.”

Meanwhile, the MPTS emphasised the need to ensure fair hearings for doctors, stating that tribunal decisions are carefully considered based on evidence presented by both the GMC and the defendant. The service noted that new guidance for tribunals would be published on 30 September, intended to improve consistency in decision-making and provide clearer frameworks for assessing misconduct cases. A spokesperson said: “We recognise the impact of our work and tribunal decisions on the lives of all those involved in our hearings. It is important that doctors have a fair hearing that thoroughly assesses all the evidence presented and that the tribunal comes to an impartial decision.”

The issue of sexual misconduct in UK medicine has been a growing concern, amplified by high-profile cases and public scrutiny of regulatory bodies. The study’s authors argue that the current system is failing to meet its objectives, leaving victims without meaningful justice and undermining confidence in the medical profession. Many tribunals appear to give disproportionate weight to mitigating factors such as perceived remorse, insight, or remediation, even in cases involving serious sexual offences, resulting in suspensions rather than permanent removal.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) also weighed in, reiterating that sexual abuse or harassment in any healthcare setting is completely unacceptable. A spokesperson said: “We expect employers and regulators to properly investigate and take action against perpetrators of sexual misconduct. This government is determined to create a culture where staff feel safe and supported. We have already taken decisive action, introducing the healthcare system’s first organisational sexual safety charter, along with strengthened guidance for medical professions on reporting misconduct. We are also ensuring whistleblowers are free to speak up, knowing that they will be supported and their concerns listened to and acted upon.”

The study highlights a pressing need for systemic reform, including stricter oversight of tribunal decisions, enhanced training for tribunal members, better victim support, and greater transparency in how sanctions are applied. Experts argue that these changes are essential to restore public confidence and ensure that doctors guilty of serious sexual offences cannot return to practice without thorough scrutiny.

Public confidence in medical professionals relies not only on clinical competence but also on ethical conduct. Allowing individuals who have committed sexual misconduct to remain in practice, even under suspension, risks eroding trust in the healthcare system and may deter victims from coming forward. The research calls attention to the broader societal implications of weak sanctions, emphasising the need for regulatory bodies to prioritise the safety of patients above all else.

By shedding light on these failings, the RCS and associated researchers hope to catalyse meaningful change within the regulatory framework. Their findings have prompted calls for urgent legislative and procedural reform, as well as increased public oversight, to ensure that the medical profession adheres to the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

In conclusion, the research paints a troubling picture of the UK’s handling of sexual misconduct by doctors. While the GMC maintains a zero-tolerance stance and the MPTS stresses fairness, the reality is that too many offenders remain in positions to potentially reoffend. Urgent reform, improved tribunal guidance, victim-focused procedures, and stricter enforcement are necessary to protect patients, uphold professional standards, and restore public confidence in the medical profession. As the MPTS prepares to release updated guidance later this month, all eyes will be on whether meaningful steps are taken to address these deeply concerning inconsistencies.