So, is your contention that, if you are either a doctor, a faux-doctor or a "celebrity" (whatever that is defined as), then shagging people necessarily equals exploiting them?
Not sure about the second two but it's certainly the GMC's contention that shagging one's patients equals exploiting them.
That seems kind of dodgy to me - after all, the people involved, however gullible and (allegedly) "vulnerable" (which is one of those words that people tend to define to mean whatever they want it to mean), are all consenting adults.
Legally, yes, they very probably are. As my patients would be if I shagged them.
In the context of markedly imbalanced power dynamics, "consenting" is also something of a slippery term.
The whole "it's unethical for doctors and patients to have sexual relationships with each other" thing is highly contentious for me anyway (and feels rooted in a rather puritanical, anti-sex concept of ethics). It also seemingly leads to some rather bizarre situational ethics - for example, if you are the only doctor in a small village, and everyone there is your patient, you aren't allowed to have sex with anyone in your village.
I have a certain sympathy for that position, and I think the GMC would too. I think single-doctor practices are pretty rare, these days, and I'd be surprised if the situation arises that often.
Or, if your spouse is a doctor, and you have an "embarrassing" health problem, perhaps in a part of your body that you don't feel comfortable with anyone other than your spouse looking at or touching, but according to this ethical system ze is the only doctor not allowed to treat you...
OMIGOD!! I've applied ointment to Xoc's back!
Again, I think the GMC would have a degree of flexibility here, partly because it's accepted that doctors will occasionally treat friends and family. If it were a regular thing to the extent that one's spouse were not registered with a GP and depended on one for all their medical care, then I'd see that as more dodgy.
The other direction - embarrassing problem patient becomes partner - is somewhat iffier...
I'm very aware of the power-relationship issues, but i also tend towards the opinion that it's impossible to have any sexual relationship entirely without power issues, and therefore that such relationships are better off with power acknowledged than with power unacknowledged (yes that's probably stepping into the territory of several Head Shop threads).
Yes, it is. Perhaps you want to start a thread there?
The logical conclusion of your ethical position would seem to be that all doctors, all faux-doctors and all celebrities should remain celibate...
The logical extension perhaps - although I don't think I've embraced quite the ethical position you've attributed to me, merely commented on the distinction that Barefoot makes in relation to the distinction the GMC makes (and looks like narrowing in the future).
The logical extension of your argument is that it's absolutely fine for doctors to have sex with their patients so long as they're adult and consenting, the power imbalance of the therapeutic relationship counting for nothing.
I think shagging his "patients" is about the only thing that the "Barefoot Doctor" does that i don't despise him for...
I despise him for it, because I think that whether he acknowledges the GMC-formalised boundaries of a UK doctor or a more nebulous 'healer' role, sex with what are essentially groupies carries a whiff of exploitation. For me, anyway. |
