Dr. Iuliu Stan. who originally trained in Romania, has been struck off the UK medical register after a court found he subjected men and boys to intimate, invasive and unnecessary procedures for his own sexual gratification.
A Romanian National Health Service doctor has been fired for performing medical procedures, including on children, for his own sexual gratification.
Patients at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust were subjected to unnecessary anal exams and had medications inserted into their rectums by Dr Iuliu Stan.
Others were not offered a companion or given the opportunity to consent to the procedures beforehand.
Some patients had medications inappropriately inserted into their rectum up to eight times.
A court ruled that twenty-one patients over a five-year period were “taken advantage of” in this way. An undisclosed number were minors.
The disgraced doctor unnecessarily abused a victim’s genitals.
Another, a teenager, had a tube used to empty the bladder inserted into his penis without clinical justification, resulting in a bacterial infection.
A court heard one patient was so uncomfortable with the doctor’s “bizarre and distressing” behavior that he tried to discharge himself from hospital before receiving antibiotics.
They found that the doctor had “subjected patients to intimate, invasive and unnecessary procedures for his own sexual gratification.”
The court 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 impeccable record, has been struck off the medical register with immediate effect by the Medical Tribunal Service (MPTS).
Not all accusations presented to the court were proven.
Dr Stan graduated in Romania in 2007 and worked in the UK on multiple occasions before specializing in the field of traumatology and orthopedics, the branch of medicine that deals with musculoskeletal problems.
He started his last role in the NHS in 2015.
Authorities were alerted to the doctor’s treatment of patients in 2020 when a father became concerned about the “time” Dr. Stan took while giving his son a painkiller rectally.
Patients at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust (pictured) were subjected to unnecessary anal exams and had medications inserted into their rectums by Dr Stan.
It was noted that the child had already been given oral pain medications shortly before Dr. Stan personally gave him the rectal drug.
The Trust subsequently warned him to “familiarize himself” with its companion policy and to have nursing staff administer his medication, if possible, in accordance with standard procedure.
An investigation was initiated when Dr. Stan prescribed and administered rectal medications to another child.
The doctor was found to have personally administered rectal medications on more than 200 previous occasions, sometimes to the same patient.
The court noted evidence that he had a “preference” to personally administer these medications to young men and boys.
Dr Stan did not attend or contribute to the hearing, and the court noted that there was a “complete lack of commitment” on the doctor’s part.
However, defending himself in the trust’s internal investigation, the court heard how he claimed that handing out rectal medication was more common in Romania.
Expert witnesses consulted by the MPTS agreed that this was the case, but added that it was not standard practice for doctors to personally administer medications themselves and, like their UK counterparts, this was mainly done by nurses.
These policies exist to ensure that there is a second set of eyes on the medications given to patients. This reduces the chances of medication errors.
Dr Stand also defended his treatment patterns to the Trust, saying he considered it more appropriate for female staff to administer suppositories to female patients.
But, considering all the evidence, the court concluded that there were no mitigating factors for his behavior.
In considering whether his behavior was sexually motivated, the court looked at behavioral patterns in the patients to whom he administered medication.
For example, of the 51 enemas Dr. Stan prescribed, he only personally administered eight, all to men under the age of 40, including twice to a 17-year-old boy.
In another example cited, Dr. Stan himself administered rectal analgesics on 277 occasions to male patients, but only once to a female patient.
In contrast, on the occasions when Dr. Stan prescribed non-rectal pain relievers, such as intravenous drips, he did not personally administer them to both sexes.
Trust staff interviewed as part of the process also said it was “unusual” for young doctors like Dr Stan, who specialized in orthopaedics, to become involved in the care of patients outside their department, something he did while undertaking some of your rectal exams. exams.
The court also focused on the experience of two specific patients, referred to in the documents as “Patient 26” and “Patient 15.”
Patient 26 was in the hospital for knee pain due to an infection. While he was there, Dr. Stan performed a rectal examination, the purpose of which was not explained to him beforehand. The patient He found it “distressing.”
Despite having been admitted without symptoms that warranted a digital rectal examination, patient 26 underwent the procedure by Dr. Stan during his stay.
They also gave her an enema without any prior consent and only told her that Dr. Stan needed to “check my glands.”
Patient 26 detailed how Dr. Stan had performed three testicular exams during his hospital stay, holding his penis each time and on one occasion removing the foreskin.
The court noted that there was nothing in Dr. Stan’s notes that explained why these tests were performed.
Patient 26 was so uncomfortable with Dr. Stan’s treatment that he attempted to discharge himself from the hospital early and nurses had to convince him to stay to receive the antibiotics needed to treat his infection.
The court said it could find no reason to question Patient 26’s account of the events and that all of the alleged procedures were sexually motivated and fit Dr Stan’s general pattern of behaviour.
Patient 15 was the only one Dr. Stand was charged with improper catheterization, a procedure in which a tube is inserted into the bladder through the urethra to help expel urine.
The patient, described in the documents as between 16 and 18 years old, was admitted for fractures but had no signs of urinary problems that would require a catheter.
No clinical justification for the insertion could be determined, the court ruled, and Patient 15 suffered a bacterial infection of the penis as a result of the unnecessary procedure.
The court also noted that there was no evidence that Patient 15 was offered a companion.
They also discovered that Dr. Stan had administered rectal-based analgesics and laxatives to Patient 15 on several occasions without clinical justification.
The court concluded: ‘On the balance of probabilities, the Court found that, where there were adequate clinical notes for patients, Dr Stan’s actions were sexually motivated in pursuit of sexual gratification.’
The court also wrote that it was “deeply concerned” about the lack of clinical justification for Dr. Stan’s conduct and the observed disparity in the administration of rectal medications between ages and genders.
In determining a sanction, the court said there was “no doubt” that Dr Stan’s conduct had not been that expected of a doctor and that expunging him was the only option.
“It had involved multiple violations of the special position of trust held by a physician,” the court wrote.
‘This concerned minors and patients who urgently needed Dr. Stan’s diligent care and attention as a physician.
“This led the Court to conclude that an expungement sanction was the only means of protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding appropriate standards of conduct for members of the profession.”
Dr. Stan, who appears to be now working in Romania as a “specialist doctor in orthopedics and traumatology”, 28 days to appeal the sentence.
The MPTS tribunal also noted that neither the GMC nor the Trust had involved the patients in their investigation despite the seriousness of the sexual allegations. and that Patient 26 had appeared before them of his own volition.
Patient 26 was only informed of the Trust’s procedures in relation to sending his medical records to the General Medical Council (GMC), which took Dr Stan’s case to the MPTS, earlier this month.
A spokesperson for Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust said: “Dr Iuliu Iosif Marian Stan has not worked at 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 Professional Performance Council, which included police representation, but this did not conclude that there were grounds for a criminal investigation into Dr Stan’s actions. We also referred Dr Stan to the GMC at that time.
“Following the Tribunal’s outcome, we will work with law enforcement and safeguarding authorities to assist with any further investigations that may now be necessary.”