Dentist’s assault - Who does the law protect?

The 57-year-old Cork dentist, who was convicted in the district court 10 days ago of sexually assaulting a trainee nurse, is free to practice without restrictions.

The Irish Dental Council (IDC), which maintains the register of dentists working in Ireland, must first discuss his case at its regular meeting in December.

Under the terms of the 1985 Dentist Act, any person may apply to the IDC for an inquiry into a registered dentist’s fitness to practise on the grounds of professional misconduct, or by reason of physical or mental disability. The IDC has no power to suspend or automatically remove a dentist’s name from the register until a Fitness to Practise hearing is held.

Such an inquiry will take place if the IDC decides there is sufficient evidence to warrant it. A dentist found guilty of such professional misconduct can then be suspended, or struck off the register.

The dentist in question was charged with three counts of sexual assault. Judge Tim Lucey dismissed two of the charges, but he convicted the accused on one charge of sexually assaulting the trainee dental nurse in his practice by opening five buttons of her uniform top. He fined the dentist €1,000.

“If I have to decide if the motive was indecent,” the judge said, “I conclude that it was.”

After the case, the young woman victim said she was still upset. She said the assault has affected her life and stopped her career. She now plans to emigrate.

“Women should not be silent in the workplace ifharassment is going on,” she declared. She has called for the dentist to be named.

The IDC has indicated in a public statement that the conviction of any dentist on a criminal charge “is likely to be referred to the Fitness to Practise Committee,” but there is no provision in the Dentist Act to automatically remove or suspend the dentist following a criminal conviction. Rather than act at a desultory pace, as if little of consequence had happened, surely the circumstances of this sexual assault in the dentist’s surgery should warrant the IDC to act promptly.

This would not only be in the interest of the public generally, but should also be of serious concern to the dental professions itself. In the circumstances people might think that women could just avoid the dentist in question, but the court ordered that the dentist should not be identified.

This poses difficulties for both the public and dental profession, because, if the public cannot identify the dentist involved, all middle-aged dentists essentially become suspects. This is unfair, and there is clearly a need for the law to be changed.