A Romanian NHS doctor has been struck off for performing medical procedures, including on children, for his own sexual gratification.
According to Mail Online, patients at Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust were subjected to unnecessary anal examinations and medications being inserted into their rectums by Dr. Iuliu Stan..
Others weren’t given the chance to consent to procedures beforehand, while some patients had medications inappropriately inserted into their rectums as many as eight times.
Twenty-one patients over a 5-year period were ‘preyed on’ in this way, a tribunal ruled. An undisclosed number were minors.
One victim had their genitals needlessly manhandled by the disgraced medic. Another, a teenager, had a tube used to empty his bladder inserted into his penis without clinical justification, contracting a bacterial infection as a result.
A tribunal heard one patient was so uncomfortable with the doctor’s ‘strange and distressing’ behaviour he tried to discharge himself from the hospital before receiving antibiotics.
They found the medic had ‘subjected patients to unnecessary, invasive and intimate procedures for his own sexual gratification’.
The tribunal added: ‘In some cases, the same patient had been subjected to intimate and invasive procedures by Dr Stan on multiple occasions.’
Dr Stan, who previously enjoyed an unblemished record, has been erased from the medical register with immediate effect by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS).
Dr. Stan graduated in Romania in 2007 and worked in the UK on multiple occasions before specialising in the field of trauma and orthopaedics, the branch of medicine concerning musculoskeletal problems.
He started his last NHS post in 2015.
Authorities were alerted to the medic’s treatment of patients in 2020 when a father became concerned about the ‘length of time’ Dr Stan took while giving his child a painkiller via the rectum.
It was noted that the child had already been given oral painkillers shortly before Dr Stan personally gave them the rectal drug.
He was subsequently warned by the Trust to ‘familiarise’ himself with its chaperone policy and to have nursing staff administer medication, if possible, in line with the standard procedure.
An investigation was launched when Dr Stan prescribed and administered rectal medication to another child.
It was discovered the medic had personally dished out rectal medications on over 200 previous occasions, sometimes to the same patient.
The tribunal noted evidence he had a ‘preference’ towards personally administering these drugs to young men and boys.
Dr Stan didn’t attend or contribute to the hearing, with the tribunal noting there was a ‘complete lack of engagement’ on the medic’s part.
However, when defending himself in the trust’s internal investigation, the tribunal heard how he claimed dishing out rectal-based medications was more common in Romania.
Expert witnesses consulted by the MPTS agreed this was the case, but they added it wasn’t standard practice for medics there to personally administer the drugs themselves and, like their UK counterparts, this was mainly handled by nurses.
Such policies are in place to ensure there is a second pair of eyes on the drugs being given to patients. This reduces the chances of medication errors occurring.
Dr Stand also defended his treatment patterns to the Trust by saying he felt it more appropriate for female staff to administer suppositories to female patients.
But, considering all the evidence, the tribunal found that there were zero mitigating factors for his behaviour.
In considering whether his behaviour was sexually motivated, the tribunal noted the patterns of behaviour in which patients he gave medication to.
For example, of the 51 enemas Dr Stan prescribed, he only personally administered eight, all to males under the age of 40, including twice for a 17-year-old boy.
In another cited example, Dr Stan administered rectal-based painkillers himself on 277 occasions for male patients, but only once for a female patient.
In contrast, on occasions when Dr Stan prescribed non-rectal painkillers, such as intravenous drips, he didn’t administer any personally for both sexes.
Trust staff interviewed as part of the proceedings also said it was ‘unusual’ for junior medics like Dr. Stan, who were specialising in orthopaedics, to get involved in the care of patients outside of their department, something he did while performing some of his rectal examinations.
The tribunal also focused on the experience of two specific patients, referred to in the documents as ‘Patient 26’ and ‘Patient 15’.
Patient 26 was in hospital for knee pain from an infection. While there, he was subjected to a rectal examination by Dr Stan, the purpose of which was not explained to him beforehand. The patient found it ‘distressing’.
Despite being admitted with no symptoms that justified a rectal examination, Patient 26 was subjected to the procedure by Dr Stan during his stay.
He was also given an enema without any prior consent, being told only that Dr. Stan needed to ‘check my glands’.
Patient 26 detailed how Dr Stan had conducted three testicular exams during his stay in the hospital, holding his penis each time and on one occasion pulling back the foreskin.
The tribunal noted that there was nothing in Dr Stan’s notes to explain why these examinations took place.
Patient 26 was so uncomfortable with Dr Stan’s treatment that he tried to discharge himself from hospital early and nurses had to persuade him to stay to receive the antibiotics needed to treat his infection.
The tribunal said they could find no reason to dispute Patient 26’s account of the events and that all the alleged procedures were sexually motivated and fit into Dr Stan’s overall pattern of behaviour.
Patient 15 was the only patient that Dr. Stand was accused of inappropriately catheterising, a procedure where a tube is inserted into the bladder via the urethra to help expel urine.
The patient, described in documents as being between 16 and 18, was admitted for a fractures but had no sign of urinary problems that would require a catheter.
No clinical justification could be determined for the insertion, the tribunal ruled, and Patient 15 went on to suffer a bacterial infection in his penis as a result of the unnecessary procedure.
The tribunal also noted there was no evidence Patient 15 was offered a chaperone.
They also found that Dr Stan had administered rectal-based painkillers and laxatives to Patient 15 on several occasions without clinical justification.
The tribunal concluded: ‘On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal determined that, where there were adequate clinical notes for patients, Dr Stan’s actions were sexually motivated in pursuit of sexual gratification.’
The tribunal also wrote they were ‘deeply concerned’ about a lack of clinical justification for Dr Stan’s conduct and the observed disparity on the administration of rectal drugs across ages and genders.
On determining a sanction, the tribunal said there was ‘no doubt’ Dr Stan’s conduct had fallen short of that expected for a medic, and erasure was the only option.
‘It had involved multiple breaches of the special position of trust a doctor occupies,’ the tribunal wrote.
‘This had been in relation to minors and patients acutely in need of Dr Stan’s diligent care and attention as their doctor.
‘This lead the Tribunal to conclude that a sanction of erasure was the only means of protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for member of the profession.’
Dr Stan, who appears to be now working in Romania as a ‘medical specialist in orthopedics and traumatology’, 28 days to the appeal the ruling.
The MPTS tribunal also noted that neither the GMC nor the Trust had involved patients in their investigation despite the serious nature of the sexual allegations. and that Patient 26 had come forward to them of his own accord.
Patient 26 was only informed of the proceedings by the Trust in relation to his medical records being sent to General Medical Council (GMC), who brought Dr Stan’s case to the MPTS, earlier this month.
A spokesperson for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust said: ‘Dr Iuliu Iosif Marian Stan has not worked at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals since September 2020 and was dismissed from our employment in March 2021.
‘Dr. Stan’s practice was reviewed by the Local Authority Designated Officer and Practitioner Performance Advice, which included Police representation, but this did not conclude there were grounds for a criminal investigation into Dr. Stan’s actions. Dr Stan was also referred by us to the GMC at this time.
‘Following the outcome of the Tribunal, we will be working with safeguarding and Police authorities to assist with further investigation that may now be required.’
