Findings

Charge Characteristics

Additional Orders

Commonly
Cited Cases

Precis

Charge:  

A charge was brought by the Director of Proceedings which stated Dr Jackson was guilty of professional misconduct in that he manipulated the neck of a patient without obtaining her informed consent. The particulars (after an amendment by the Tribunal) of the charge were as follows:

1. He failed to disclose the risks of treatment that would be considered material risks by a reasonable patient in his said patient's circumstances.
   AND/OR
2. He failed to provide his said patient with an explanation of the options available to her, including an assessment of the risks, side effects, and benefits of each option.
   AND/OR
3. He inaccurately represented to his said patient the likely success of the manipulative treatment.
   AND/OR
4. He failed to explain to his said patient that the proposed treatment was not orthodox treatment by a general practitioner.
   AND/OR
5. He falsely gave his said patient the impression that he was one of only two experts in New Zealand qualified in the manipulative treatment that he was offering to provide his said patient with.

Background: 

A female patient who was on holiday and had not previously met Dr Jackson consulted him to have a mole checked. She had a lengthy history of neck and back pain. After discussion with her, and a further discussion with her husband in her presence, Dr Jackson manipulated her neck with her agreement.

Finding:

The Tribunal found Dr Jackson guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner and that that conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to practise medicine. It found that he manipulated the patient's neck without obtaining her informed consent in that he:

1. Failed to disclose at least four risks of treatment which would be considered material risks by a reasonable patient in his said patient's circumstances;
2.  Failed to provide the patient with an explanation of the options available to her including an assessment of the risks, side effects and benefits of each option;
3. Inaccurately represented to her the likely success of the manipulative treatment.

In the particular circumstances of the case the Tribunal found that Dr Jackson's proven conduct did not meet the test for professional misconduct but that it did constitute conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner which reflects adversely on Dr Jackson's fitness to practise medicine.

The Tribunal considered that particulars iv and v were not established.  The Tribunal was not satisfied it was proved that the proposed treatment was an orthodox treatment.  It was not satisfied on the facts that the doctor represented that he was one of only two experts in New Zealand qualified in that treatment.

Penalty:

In a Penalty Decision the Tribunal noted that in relation to a consultation which took place in January 1996 the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee had also found Dr Jackson guilty of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner. The background to that finding was that Dr Jackson had manipulated a patient's neck without her consent.

The Tribunal ordered:

1. That Dr Jackson be censured;
2. That he pay a fine of $2,500;
3. That he may, for a period not exceeding two years, practise medicine only in accordance with the following conditions:
   1. He is to observe and comply with all of the terms of the voluntary undertaking already given by him to the Health Committee of the Medical Council of New Zealand.
   2. He is to undergo a Competence Review by the Medical Council of New Zealand or its appointee(s).
   3. He is not, except in a case of extreme emergency where the patient's medical condition makes it impossible for him to obtain it (all of which cases he is to report to his mentor), to carry out any medical treatment without first obtaining his patient's informed consent to the treatment proposed.
   4. He may not, except with the prior written permission of the Medical Council of New Zealand, practise medicine as a self-employed person.
   5. He may work only for such other practitioner or practitioners and in such place or places as have from time to time been approved in writing by the Medical Council of New Zealand;
4. That he pay 35% of the costs and expenses of and incidental to the prosecution of the charge by the Director of Proceedings and the hearing by the Tribunal;
5. That in relation to Dr Jackson the Secretary of the Tribunal is to cause a notice under Section 138(2) of the Medical Practitioners Act 1995 to be published in the New Zealand Medical Journal.