Nearly a quarter of guilty doctors kept practising after sexual misconduct rulings, report finds
A damning new report has exposed glaring failures in how medical tribunals handle proven cases of sexual misconduct among doctors, warning that the current system is leaving perpetrators in power while patients and colleagues remain vulnerable.
Research published in The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England reviewed 222 new tribunal cases considered by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) between August 2023 and August 2024. Of these, 55 involved sexual misconduct allegations ranging from harassment and assault to rape and offences against children.
The findings are stark: nearly a quarter of doctors found guilty of sexual misconduct were allowed to continue practising after only a temporary suspension. In 11 cases, the General Medical Council (GMC) had called for permanent erasure from the medical register—yet the MPTS tribunals opted for suspension instead.
All 46 doctors sanctioned for sexual misconduct were men, with four in five holding senior positions of authority.
“This important research highlights deeply concerning inconsistencies in sanctions for sexual misconduct cases before MPTS tribunals,” said Professor Vivien Lees, vice president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. “These failures risk leaving perpetrators in power and eroding trust in the profession.”
The report concluded that the disciplinary system relies too heavily on subjective evidence, resulting in wildly inconsistent punishments for offences of similar gravity. Lead author Mei Nortley, a consultant vascular surgeon, warned that allowing rapists and sexual predators to return to practice undermines public safety and damages confidence in the profession.
Embed from Getty ImagesOne case cited involved an acute medical consultant who was found guilty of rape but given only a 12-month suspension on the grounds it was a “one-off event”. In another case, a transplant surgeon who abused his trainees for more than a decade and engaged in non-consensual touching during operations was suspended for eight months. The GMC had sought to strike him off.
In a third case, a doctor pursued a patient from the age of 14, later initiating a sexual relationship once she was vulnerable. The tribunal suspended him for 12 months, citing his supposed “insight, remediation and remorse”.
“These cases raise questions about the adequacy of protection for victims and the public,” the authors noted, adding that such decisions erode faith in the medical profession.
The Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery condemned the current process as one that “fails staff, fails patients, and fails to guarantee safe care”. Their statement was blunt: “Without reform, powerful perpetrators will continue with impunity. Right now, the system gives little more than a slap on the wrist for abuse, when only erasure and accountability can ensure safety.”
The GMC insists it takes a “zero tolerance” approach to sexual misconduct. A spokesperson said the regulator often seeks permanent removal for such cases, and when tribunal sanctions are deemed too lenient, it appeals—and succeeds in strengthening them in many instances.
For its part, the MPTS defended its role, stressing the need for impartial hearings that fairly weigh evidence from both sides. A spokesperson acknowledged the significance of its decisions and promised new guidance to promote more consistent outcomes. The revised framework will draw on case law, best practice from other jurisdictions and existing tribunal rules.
But campaigners argue guidance alone is not enough. For victims, and for the wider public, the question remains whether a profession that entrusts its members with life and death can afford to let men guilty of rape, grooming, or harassment return to positions of authority with nothing more than a suspension.