Leg-Buckling Orgasms

Faking it.

I have had numerous emails and one phonecall about the case of Bibi Giles. Bibi Giles accused her gynecologist of giving her a number of leg buckling orgasms. The Telegraph approaches the case from a different angle and finally questions the risks to doctors who examine patients in their consulting rooms. Bibi Giles had intended on extracting £50,000 from her doctor on the grounds she obviously didn't enjoy these so called leg buckling orgasms.

"The Guyanese-born Mrs Giles had accused Mr Thomson of bringing her to orgasm by touching her inappropriately, while a nurse stood just feet away. She also claimed he had been putting her under pressure to have an affair and harassing her for six months.

But the lurid claims made by the glamorous beautician – Mrs Giles had alleged that Mr Thomson had given her a “leg-buckling orgasm” during an internal examination at his clinic in Worcestershire – had alerted her former GP to the proceedings.

Dr William Dowley, 45, came forward to tell the court that Mrs Giles had previously made advances to him, after admitting to an unusually high libido. “Life would have been much easier,” concluded Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins, summing up after the civil claim against the doctor was dropped, “if Mrs Giles had admitted this incident at the start of the case. She has got form.”

If Mr Thompson can indeed do that, I am sure every man would be learning the technique from him. Then teenagers would stop being a bit like a supermarket trolley - pushing and shoving and getting nowhere. Grown men aren't much better apparently. The probability is that Mr Thompson being a man like every other man would have no idea how to cause two leg buckling orgasms. As such, we all knew Bibi Giles was just a serial litigant with an obsession for men and doctors. Dr Helen Bright talked about the Clerembault syndrome but I shall let her write about that aspect of these leg buckling orgasms.

The rest of us who were utterly bored with this story yawned and said two things. Firstly, some of us have warned the General Medical Council about vexatious complaints. The two people who have done so are myself and David Southall [with his entourage PACA]. The General Medical Council piped up as the saviour of all doctors and said the following in the Telegraph :-

"The General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, says it attempts to investigate complaints as thoroughly as possible before they go to a full hearing, in order that a doctor’s reputation is not dragged through the mud for a complaint that turns out to be “vexatious”. It has just issued a policy that attempts to weed out such allegations at the earliest possible stage"

PACA issued a press release sometime ago before they limped on their campaign. The facts of the GMC's change in mind are as follows, firstly R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal which argued the lack of provisions in the event of a vexatious complaint had a permission hearing which was won by me. By December 2008, the GMC had decided to insert a section in the new rules which made allowances for vexatious complaints. Their emails to and from Jean Robinson author of a A Patients Voice at the General Medical Council shows the GMC to have poorly implemented the issue within their rules. They currently have no definition of what constitutes a vexatious complaint and moreover, the directive in the final hearing R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal cites that any complaint "capable of being misconduct" is automatically investigated. The issue of vexatious complaints has never been recognised, formulated or analysed by the General Medical Council. Even though the criticism against the civil courts are presented within the above Telegraph article, they do have civil restraint orders to prevent repeated litigation. The GMC has nothing to prevent multiple complaints being taken through their systems. Indeed, their processes outline that the more complaints there are about a doctor means that his fitness to practise is more likely to be impaired. This is of course a flawed concept developed by the GMC. In reality, numerous vexatious complaints still filter through the GMC's investigation processes affecting doctor's livelihoods. In R v General Medical Council Ex Parte Pal, the GMC denied any responsibility for the doctors employment. This follows, any complaint wrongly taken up and one that affects a doctors livelihood has no remedy.

Essentially, the General Medical Council are confused. I argued that I was subject to a series of vexatious complaints following the written material exposing the facts behind the harassment against David Southall but the General Medical Council and the courts ignored the issue completely. They argued that whether it was vexatious or not, it deserved investigation and the loss of my job. The GMC ignored the vexatious complaints from the anti msbp brigade. The fact is that we do not know how many doctors livelihoods have been assassinated wrongly because the GMC has been used as a lever for harassment. The GMC refuses to acknowledge the idea that they are often used as a instrument of harassment.

The case Gopakumar v General Medical Council comes to mind. A vexatious complainant in search of compensation who had a dubious past with the police complained about her GP and got him struck off. The GMC did not bat an eyelid when the innocent Gopakumar was struck off.

Secondly, the issue of chaperones as witnesses was rehearsed repeatedly through the David Southall case. David Southall has been admonished for making statements his chaperone says he never made. Mandy Morris was exposed by Panorama as a serial complainant and someone who manipulated the truth. Essentially, the a complainant with dubious integrity was preferred in place of a social worker who had no previous records of dishonesty. We can then conclude that the GMC itself relies on dubious witnesses as opposed to chaperones. This places doctors in an inordinate amount of danger - i.e. if they cannot rely on a chaperone to verify their actions, what protection is there for doctors wrongly accused?

We therefore have to question this - how safe is the doctor from the General Medical Council? And of course, as we all know the GMC result can be used and abused by lawyers to obtain a court result - and vice versa.

It is a great shame that after all these years, it took a leg buckling orgasm story to bring this issue to the forefront of the media's eye. The fact that doctors have been subjected to vexatious lying complaints for years without a remedy is clearly of no consequence.