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

When allegations of sexual misconduct involving doctors at hospitals arise, two key aspects must be acknowledged. First, the potential impact on the doctor involved, both professionally and reputationally. Second, the importance of not ignoring the experiences of the victims—whose perspectives are often overshadowed by the focus on investigations, findings, and subsequent actions taken.

Sexual harassment remains significantly under-reported. In a Malaysian survey by Women's Aid Organisation, 62% of women surveyed reported experiencing unwanted sexual advances at work, yet only 21% identified their experiences as "sexual harassment." Many individuals do not recognize their experiences as inappropriate until such behaviours are clearly described.

This reality should be the cornerstone of our discussion, not the assumption of a widespread issue of false accusations, but rather an epidemic of silence surrounding the matter. It is acknowledged that false allegations may occur, and these should be investigated if there is evidence of fabrication. However, it is crucial to make a clear distinction between recognizing this possibility and allowing it to dominate the narrative surrounding workplace sexual harassment.

A key point to note is that "not proven" is not equivalent to "false." A complaint may be deemed unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence, unavailable witnesses, withdrawal by the complainant, or an investigation's inability to precisely establish what occurred. None of these outcomes indicate fabrication. Furthermore, the definition of evidence in cases of sexual harassment is important to consider.

Such harassment rarely leaves behind the type of forensic trail that people might expect. It frequently occurs in private, without witnesses, and within situations where one person holds significant authority over another. Additionally, abusers are often aware of existing systems and how to circumvent them, making patterns of behavior towards others another crucial form of corroborating evidence.

This highlights the importance of the #MeToo movement in holding perpetrators accountable. The discussion also highlights the complex relationship between power and sexual harassment. It is not merely about sex but about hierarchy, authority, and the risk associated with speaking up. Medicine serves as a prime example of this dynamic imbalance.

House officers rely on senior doctors for various aspects of their medical careers, and junior doctors may find it difficult to refuse inappropriate behavior without fearing professional repercussions. This imbalance is deeply embedded within Malaysian institutions, particularly in the medical field. A case in Kota Kinabalu hospital exemplifies the stark imbalance, where a doctor who alleged sexual harassment from her hospital director experienced psychiatric treatment, took 101 days of medical leave, and faced financial penalties while the alleged perpetrator remained employed.

The investigation into the allegations is ongoing, but the immediate and tangible harm caused by reporting is evident. However, much of the public conversation continues to focus on the hypothetical harms faced by the accused, while comparatively less attention is given to how men can prevent sexual harassment from occurring in the first place.

The conversation should shift to encompass the responsibility of men in creating workplaces where sexual harassment is less likely to occur. The emphasis should be on how men can help establish professional boundaries, challenge sexist humor, respect consent and personal space, recognize unwanted touching, and refuse to misuse positions of authority.

More importantly, there should be an expectation that men speak to other men about these issues. The question should not be on how men can avoid accusations but rather how they can contribute to creating environments where sexual harassment is less likely to take place. If men are genuinely concerned about false allegations, a more effective safeguard would be accountability among men rather than suspicion of women.

Cultures change when those with power refuse to protect one another. Rather than asking, "How do we protect innocent men from complaints?" the focus should be on "What are we doing to stop men from abusing the power they already have?" Discussions centered around false allegations often create a defensive posture in which men perceive themselves primarily as potential victims of accusations.

While this may be understandable, it overlooks the broader picture. Men are not just potential defendants in this conversation; they are consultants, supervisors, heads of department, mentors, colleagues, and institutional leaders. They also have the ability—and indeed the responsibility—to shape workplace cultures before any complaints arise.

Much of the present discussion mistakenly equates accountability with persecution. These are distinct concepts. Every profession periodically experiences what may be termed institutional housekeeping, whereby behaviors that were once ignored, normalized, or quietly tolerated are subjected to scrutiny. Medicine is not uniquely subjected to this process; it is simply being asked to adhere to the same standards increasingly expected across workplaces.