Only chastised?
Stuff reports:
A midwife who had an affair with her client’s partner during the pregnancy has been chastised by the health and disability commissioner.
In a report released today, Commissioner Anthony Hill ruled by entering into a sexual relationship with the woman’s partner and continuing to provide midwifery services at the same time, the midwife failed to provide services in accordance with ethical and professional standards and breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.
The self-employed midwife had been close personal friends of the couple for some time, and provided care to the woman during her second pregnancy.
In 2013, the woman became pregnant with her third child and employed the midwife again.
She said she began to suspect the midwife was having an affair with her partner towards the end of her pregnancy, but was in denial.
“I went into shock, I could not believe that two people who were supposed to care for me could possibly be so horrible and act with such disregard,” she says in the report.
“The final two months of my pregnancy were horrible. I was working, I had two small children and I thought I was going crazy to be thinking that my midwife and so-called friend was sleeping with the father of my children.
“I literally thought I was losing my mind. I was paranoid and in a high state of anxiety.”
It is hard to imagine a crueler betrayal. I’m staggered that she has been chastised only, and not recommended for loss pf practicing certificate.
Generally it is a serious no no for any health practitioner to have a relationship with a patient.
To have an affair with the partner of a patient is terrible, and destroys the trust needed between a health provider and patient, to be acting in the best interests of the patient.
For it to be your midwife, who is involved with your pregnancy and birth in such an intimate way, is beyond terrible. And the suffering the woman went through sounds awful.
She has also been referred to the Director of Proceedings.
The names and location of the parties have been suppressed.
Surely this must be loss of licence?