Sanctions for doctors found guilty of sexual misconduct in the United Kingdom have come under intense scrutiny following the release of a damning review published on September 19, 2025. The review, conducted by six independent academics and reported by multiple outlets including BBC and Sky News, found that nearly a quarter of doctors convicted of such offenses were allowed to resume practice after serving a period of suspension, rather than being permanently struck off the medical register.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS), the body responsible for determining whether doctors are fit to practice, stands at the center of the criticism. The MPTS is independent but funded by and accountable to the General Medical Council (GMC), which investigates complaints and prosecutes cases against doctors. The review analyzed 222 MPTS tribunal cases heard between August 2023 and August 2024, uncovering 46 cases involving proven sexual misconduct. Offenses ranged from harassment and grooming to rape and assaults against patients, colleagues, and even children.
According to Sky News, nearly 24% of these cases ended with doctors receiving only suspensions, despite the severity of their crimes. In 11 of the 46 cases, the GMC had argued for the doctors to be struck off entirely, but the MPTS imposed suspensions instead. The report found that in around 23.9% of sexual misconduct cases, sanctions were more lenient than the GMC’s own recommendations, and in no instance did the tribunal apply a harsher penalty than what was suggested.
One particularly troubling case involved a UK transplant surgeon who was suspended for just eight months, despite a decade-long history of abuses of power, targeting multiple trainees, sexual harassment, non-consensual touching during surgery, and even racism. The GMC, along with the Professional Standards Authority, appealed this decision, viewing it as far too lenient. In another case, a doctor who had pursued and groomed a vulnerable patient from the age of 14 was suspended for 12 months rather than being struck off, with the tribunal panel citing evidence of "insight, remediation, and remorse." A separate paper in the British Medical Journal highlighted a 2025 case in which an acute medical consultant found guilty of rape was given a 12-month suspension, with the tribunal describing the offense as a "one-off event."
All 46 doctors involved in the sexual misconduct cases were men, and almost all were consultants, general practitioners, or registrars. Nearly 80% held positions of authority. Several cases involved multiple victims, with some abuse spanning up to nine years, suggesting patterns of repeated and systemic misconduct. The report authors highlighted inconsistency in the sanctions imposed, a chronic lack of training for tribunal members, and poor support for victims and witnesses.
Mei Nortley, a consultant vascular surgeon and the review’s lead author, did not mince words about the gravity of the findings. "Allowing rapists, sexual predators, and those who use manipulation and coercion to return as practising doctors brings this into question," Nortley stated, according to BBC. The concern, echoed by many, is that the current system risks "allowing rapists, sexual predators and those who use manipulation and coercion to return as practising doctors," which "brings professional standards and public confidence into question."
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS England) also weighed in, with Vice President Professor Vivien Lees warning that the leniency "risks leaving perpetrators in power." Lees emphasized, "Guidance alone is not enough. Tribunal panels must be trained and apply it consistently to ensure fair, robust decisions. RCS England will hold the MPTS to account to ensure these vital changes are fully delivered." The RCS England’s position underscores a broader call for systemic reform, not just updated guidelines.
Other experts have voiced similar concerns. Tamzin Cuming and Professor Carrie Newlands from the Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery (WPSMS) commented, "Right now, the system gives little more than a slap on the wrist for abuse, when only erasure and accountability can ensure safety. Without reform, powerful perpetrators will continue with impunity." Their remarks reflect a growing frustration within the medical profession and among patient advocates who believe that robust action is needed to protect vulnerable individuals and uphold the integrity of the profession.
The MPTS, for its part, acknowledged the impact of its tribunal decisions on all involved. A spokesperson stated, "We recognise the impact of our work and tribunal decisions on the lives of all those involved in our hearings. It is important that doctors have a fair hearing, that thoroughly assesses all the evidence presented by both the GMC and the doctor and that the tribunal comes to an impartial decision. We will soon publish a new suite of guidance for tribunals, covering all aspects of our hearings. It will draw together existing guidance and recent case law, as well as best practice from other jurisdictions, to assist tribunals in reaching consistent and well-reasoned decisions."
The GMC has defended its approach, insisting it takes a "zero-tolerance and proactive approach" to all forms of sexual misconduct. A spokesperson told Sky News, "Where we feel the sanctions applied by the independent tribunal are too lenient – we can, and do appeal. A significant proportion of our appeals are successful and result in stronger sanctions." The GMC added, "We will often ask for the doctor to be struck off the medical register." This proactive stance, however, has not always resulted in the desired outcomes, as the review makes clear.
Underlying the debate is the fundamental question of public trust. When medical professionals found guilty of sexual misconduct are allowed to return to practice after relatively short suspensions, critics argue that the system is prioritizing the careers of offenders over the safety and well-being of patients and colleagues. The review’s findings, published in The Bulletin of the RCS, have intensified calls for reform, with many insisting that only permanent removal from the register can ensure public safety and restore confidence in the regulatory system.
In response to the mounting criticism, the MPTS has begun updating its guidance for tribunals, with a particular focus on sexual misconduct cases. The new guidance, expected to be published soon, aims to provide clearer standards and promote greater consistency in decision-making. Whether these changes will satisfy critics and lead to a more robust and trusted disciplinary process remains to be seen.
For now, the spotlight remains firmly fixed on the regulatory bodies, with patients, professionals, and the broader public watching closely to see if meaningful change will follow.
