Romanian NHS doctor who ‘preyed’ on young boys is suspended after being caught unnecessarily inserting laxatives and painkillers into their rectums ‘for his own sexual gratification’

A Romanian NHS doctor has been suspended for performing medical procedures, including on children, for his own sexual gratification.

Patients at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust were subjected to unnecessary anal examinations and drugs inserted into their rectums by Dr Iuliu Stan.

Others were not offered a supervisor or given the opportunity to agree to procedures in advance.

Some patients had medications inappropriately inserted into their rectums as many as eight times.

Twenty-one patients were ‘targeted’ in this way over a period of five years, a tribunal ruled. An undisclosed number were minors.

One victim’s genitals were unnecessarily abused by the disgraced medic.

Another, a teenager, had a tube inserted into his penis to empty his bladder without clinical justification, causing him to develop a bacterial infection.

A court heard how a patient became so uncomfortable with the doctor’s ‘strange and disturbing’ behavior that he tried to discharge himself from hospital before being given antibiotics.

They found that the doctor had “subjected patients to unnecessary, invasive and intimate procedures for his own sexual gratification.”

The tribunal added: ‘In some cases the same patient had been subjected to intimate and invasive procedures by Dr Stan on multiple occasions.’

Dr. Stan, who previously had an unblemished record, has been struck off the medical register by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) with immediate effect.

Not all allegations submitted to the tribunal have been proven.

Dr. Stan graduated in Romania in 2007 and worked several times in Great Britain before specializing in the field of trauma and orthopedics, the branch of medicine that deals with problems of the musculoskeletal system.

He started his last NHS post in 2015.

Authorities were alerted to the doctor’s treatment of patients in 2020 when a father raised concerns about the ‘duration’ it took for Doctor Stan to give his child a painkiller through the rectum.

It was noted that the child had already been given oral painkillers shortly before Dr. Stan personally gave him the rectal medicine.

He was then warned by the Trust to ‘familiarize himself’ with the chaperone policy and, if possible, have the nursing staff administer medication according to standard procedure.

An investigation was started when Dr. Stan prescribed and administered rectal medications to another child.

It was discovered that the doctor had personally dispensed rectal medications more than 200 times, sometimes to the same patient.

The tribunal found evidence that he had a ‘preference’ to personally administer these drugs to young men and boys.

Dr. Stan did not attend or contribute to the hearing, with the tribunal noting that there was a ‘complete lack of involvement’ on the part of the medic.

Defending itself in the trust’s internal investigation, the tribunal heard how he claimed the distribution of rectal medicines was more common in Romania.

Expert witnesses consulted by the MPTS agreed that this was the case, but they added that it was not standard practice for medics there to administer the drugs personally and that, like their British counterparts, this was mainly done by nurses was done.

Such policies have been put in place to ensure that there is a second set of eyes on the medications given to patients. This reduces the chance of medication errors.

Dr. Stand also defended his treatment patterns to the Trust, saying he felt it was more appropriate for female staff to administer suppositories to female patients.

But considering all the evidence, the tribunal found there were no mitigating factors for his conduct.

In assessing whether his behavior was sexually motivated, the tribunal took into account the behavioral patterns of the patients to whom he administered medication.

Of the 51 enemas that Dr. Stan, for example, personally administered only eight, all to men under 40, including twice to a 17-year-old boy.

In another example cited, Dr. Stan himself administered rectal painkillers 277 times to male patients, but only once to a female patient.

When Dr. In contrast, when Stan prescribed non-rectal painkillers, such as intravenous drops, he did not personally administer them to either sex.

Trust staff interviewed as part of the proceedings also said it was ‘unusual’ for junior medics such as Dr. Stan, who specialized in orthopedics, became involved in caring for patients outside their department, something he did while performing some of his rectal surgeries. exams.

The tribunal also focused on the experience of two specific patients, referred to in the documents as ‘Patient 26’ and ‘Patient 15’.

Patient 26 was hospitalized for knee pain due to an infection. While there, he was subjected to a rectal examination by Dr. Stan, the purpose of which was not explained to him beforehand. The patient found it ‘disturbing’.

Despite being admitted without symptoms warranting a rectal examination, patient 26 was treated by Dr. Stan subjected to the procedure.

He was also given an enema without prior consent, only being told that Dr. Stan needed to “check my glands.”

Patient 26 explained how Dr Stan had performed three testicular examinations during his hospital stay, each time holding his penis and on one occasion pulling back the foreskin.

The tribunal noted that nothing in Dr. Stan stood to explain why these investigations were taking place.

Patient 26 felt so uncomfortable with Dr. Stan said he tried to discharge himself from the hospital early and nurses had to convince him to stay to receive the antibiotics needed to treat his infection.

The tribunal said they could find no reason to dispute Patient 26’s account of events and that all alleged procedures were sexually motivated and fit into Dr. Stan.

Patient 15 was the only patient for whom Dr. Stand was accused of improper catheterization, a procedure in which a tube is inserted through the urethra into the bladder to help expel urine.

The patient, described in the documents as between 16 and 18 years old, was admitted for a fracture but showed no signs of urinary problems requiring a catheter.

No clinical justification could be established for the insertion, the tribunal ruled, and Patient 15 subsequently developed a bacterial infection in his penis as a result of the unnecessary procedure.

The tribunal also noted that there was no evidence that Patient 15 was offered a chaperone.

They also discovered that Dr. Stan had administered rectal analgesics and laxatives to Patient 15 on several occasions without clinical justification.

The tribunal concluded: ‘On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal determined that, if there were sufficient clinical notes for patients, Dr. Stan were sexually motivated in the pursuit of sexual gratification.’

The tribunal also wrote that they were ‘deeply concerned’ by a lack of clinical justification for Dr. Stan and the observed differences in the administration of rectal drugs between ages and genders.

In determining a sanction, the tribunal said there was “no doubt” that Dr. Stan fell short of what was expected of a doctor and that removal was the only option.

“It involved multiple violations of the special position of trust that a doctor occupies,” the tribunal wrote.

“This involved minors and patients who were in acute need of Dr.’s dedicated care and attention. Stan as their doctor.

‘This led the Tribunal to the conclusion that an expulsion sanction was the only means of protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and promulgating and maintaining good standards of conduct for members of the profession.’

Dr. Stan, who now appears to be working in Romania as a ‘medical specialist in orthopedics and traumatology’, has 28 days to appeal the ruling.

The MPTS tribunal also noted that neither the GMC nor the Trust had involved patients in their investigation, despite the serious nature of the sexual allegations. and that patient 26 had come to them of his own accord.

Patient 26 was only informed by the Trust earlier this month of the procedure regarding sending his medical records to the General Medical Council (GMC), which is investigating Dr. Stan to the MPTS.

A spokesperson for the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust said: ‘Dr. Iuliu Iosif Marian Stan has not worked at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals since September 2020 and was dismissed from our employment in March 2021.

‘The practice of Dr. Stan was assessed by the Local Authority Designated Officer and Practitioner Performance Advice, including police representation, but this did not conclude that there were grounds for a criminal investigation into Dr. Stan. Dr. Stan was also referred to the GMC by us at the time.

‘Following the outcome of the Tribunal, we will work with the security and police authorities to assist with any further investigations that may now be required.’