Patient files complaint over genital exams during dizziness stay
SingTao · 1 SOURCESabout 2 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
A man using the pseudonym Peter told Sing Tao Complaint King that he was admitted to a private hospital in April 2021 after sudden, severe dizziness and was then twice asked by a male doctor to remove his trousers for genital examinations. Peter said he suspected indecent assault because the doctor was a paediatrician, no nurse was present during the first examination, and the checks were explained as being related to lymph nodes despite his dizziness complaint. He later reported the matter to police and filed complaints with the Medical Council of Hong Kong and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The Medical Council has opened an investigation and set a hearing before an inquiry committee for November this year, according to Peter
Key Points
- Peter said he and the doctor had known each other for more than 10 years through the same Christian fellowship, though they were not close
- After Peter mentioned his dizziness in a fellowship group in April 2021, the paediatrician called, offered help, and arranged his admission to a private hospital
- Peter alleged the doctor first performed a general examination, then without a nurse present asked him to remove his trousers to check lymph nodes and manipulated his penis and foreskin for several minutes
- Peter said the doctor later complimented his looks, touched his waist in a way he found strange, and his arm brushed Peter’s penis several times during both examinations
- Peter later confronted the doctor, who defended his conduct; Peter also alleged the doctor fabricated abdominal pain in records, one of five Medical Council allegations he says are being examined
Why It Matters
The case raises questions for Hong Kong patients about consent, chaperone arrangements, and whether the scope of a physical examination is properly explained when symptoms do not obviously relate to intimate body parts. It also draws attention to the separate roles of police and professional regulators: police said there was insufficient evidence for arrest or prosecution, while the Medical Council declined to comment because it has disciplinary powers and the case is under process