Probe sexual misconduct claims, but don’t forget the victims

When it comes to sexual misconduct allegations involving doctors at hospitals, two key aspects must be acknowledged. Firstly, false allegations can negatively impact a doctor's career and reputation. Secondly, the impact on the victims must not be overlooked, with their experiences often overshadowed by the focus on probes, findings, and actions taken.

Sexual harassment remains largely unreported. A survey in Malaysia found that 62% of women experienced unwanted sexual advances at work, but only 21% identified it as sexual harassment. Many victims only realize a behaviour is inappropriate after being explicitly described. This reality should frame our conversation: not a false accusation epidemic, but a silence epidemic.

It is true that false allegations do occur and should be investigated when evidence of fabrication exists. However, false allegations should not overshadow the fact that "not proven" is not the same as "false." Complaints may be unsubstantiated for various reasons, including insufficient evidence, unavailability of witnesses, withdrawn complaints, or an inability to precisely establish what happened.

The definition of evidence in sexual harassment cases is also crucial. Unlike other crimes, it rarely leaves a forensic trail. Sexual harassment often happens discreetly, without witnesses, and within power imbalances where one person holds significant authority over another. This makes patterns of behaviour towards others a vital form of corroborating evidence, particularly in the context of the #MeToo movement.

Power dynamics play a significant role in sexual harassment. It's not just about sex; it's about hierarchy, authority, and professional consequences. In medicine, house officers depend on senior doctors for assessments, references, training, and career progression. This imbalance makes it difficult for junior doctors to speak up against inappropriate behaviour.

In Malaysia, recent cases involving house officers and hospital directors illustrate these dynamics. A doctor alleging sexual harassment by her director faced psychiatric treatment, medical leave, and financial penalties, while the director remained at work. The focus should be on preventing sexual harassment from occurring in the first place, not just addressing the hypothetical harms faced by the accused.

Yet, public conversations often prioritise the latter. Where are the discussions about maintaining professional boundaries, challenging sexist humour, respecting consent, and refusing to misuse positions of authority? These conversations should also include men, as they should not be viewed solely as potential victims but as consultants, supervisors, leaders, and bystanders who can shape workplace cultures.