-
Source: Thinkstock
Family First is outraged that a doctor who had thousands of images of child porn on his computer, has had his name suppressed in sentencing today.
The doctor has been suspended from practising for nine months after pleading guilty to possessing images of child sex abuse.
He was sentenced to four months' home detention after admitting 25 charges of possessing objectionable material and one charge of distributing an objectionable publication.
The material was found on the doctor's computer and an external hard drive which contained over 400,000 files, 290,000 of which related to images of young girls in explicit sexual poses.
In a decision released by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal today, the doctor had his registration suspended for nine months from the date of the hearing - July 26, 2010.
The tribunal also imposed several conditions for three years after the suspension ended, including that he comply with ongoing counselling, ongoing oversight by the health committee of the Medical Council, and that he undergo a psychiatric assessment confirming fitness to practise before he was reregistered. He was also ordered to pay $6000 costs.
But Family First said tonight the rights of the doctor to name suppression and privacy should not be greater than the right of patients and especially parents to know the character of their doctor.
Patients and parents should be informed so that they can make an informed choice as to whether they continue having him as their family doctor, even after his nine-month suspension, said Bob McCoskrie, Family First's National Director.
The doctor in question not only had 290,000 images of young girls in explicit sexual poses but as well as that, was found to be distributing objectionable material further. This is not a one-off slip.
"That is the price the doctor must pay to match the gravity of the abuse of children. Many parents would rightly be concerned at a doctor with those convictions examining their young son or daughter. Parents should be given the right to make an informed decision, McCoskrie said.
The Tribunal said the public had a legitimate expectation that their medical practitioners would behave in a morally and ethically acceptable way and the punishment handed down to the doctor reflected that.
"This type of offending does deserve condemnation from the tribunal and a recognition that the tribunal has a role in maintaining public standards. Both of these factors could make cancellation of (the doctor's) registration the appropriate penalty," the decision read.
Would you want to know this doctor's name if he is practising again in 9 months? Have your say on our messageboard below.
Add a Comment:
Post new comment