A UK doctor admits to shocking medical misconduct after leaving a patient under anaesthetic to have sex with a nurse. Tribunal weighs sanctions.
A shocking case of medical misconduct has emerged in the UK, involving consultant anaesthetist Dr Suhail Anjum, who admitted leaving a patient under anaesthetic to engage in sexual activity with a nurse.
The allegations, heard by a medical tribunal, have raised serious concerns about patient safety, professional standards, and public trust in healthcare.
The Incident at Tameside Hospital
The incident took place at Tameside Hospital in Greater Manchester. During a surgical procedure, Dr Anjum told colleagues he needed a “comfort break” and asked another professional to monitor the patient.
Instead of returning quickly, he went to another operating theatre, where he was discovered in a compromising position with a nurse identified as Nurse C.
A shocked member of staff walked in on the pair and reported the matter, triggering an internal investigation and subsequent referral to the GMC tribunal.
GMC Testimony
At the hearing, Andrew Molloy, representing the General Medical Council, confirmed that no harm had come to the patient.
The procedure was completed without incident under the supervision of the colleague who had stepped in.
However, Molloy stressed that the misconduct was still extremely serious, as it undermined the duty of care expected of a senior NHS doctor.
Doctor’s Response
Dr Anjum did not contest the allegations. Instead, he admitted full responsibility and expressed remorse.
“It was quite shameful, to say the least. I only have myself to blame,” he told the tribunal.
He apologised to colleagues and the hospital, adding: “I offer my sincere apologies to everyone involved and I want the opportunity to put this right.”
He explained that the lapse in judgement came during a period of stress in his family life, though he acknowledged this did not excuse his behaviour.
Ethical and Professional Standards
The case has drawn attention to the importance of maintaining the highest professional standards in medicine.
Patients under anaesthetic rely entirely on medical staff for their safety. Even short absences by an anaesthetist can place them at serious risk.
While no direct harm occurred in this case, experts argue that the potential consequences highlight why medical misconduct is treated with such severity.
Public confidence in the NHS depends on the assurance that doctors remain fully committed to patient welfare at all times.
Lessons from Similar GMC Cases
The GMC has previously dealt with cases of misconduct where professional boundaries were crossed.
In some instances, doctors have faced suspension for inappropriate relationships with colleagues or patients, while others have been permanently struck off for serious ethical breaches.
These precedents highlight that sanctions are not just about punishing the individual but also about reinforcing expectations across the medical community.
Each ruling serves as a message that medical misconduct—whether or not it results in direct patient harm—cannot be tolerated.
Medical ethicists often point out that such hearings also have a corrective purpose. By publicly addressing failures, the GMC aims to remind doctors of the values underpinning their profession: integrity, accountability, and unwavering focus on patient care.
Implications for the NHS
The incident has also sparked wider debate about pressures in the health service. Long hours and stressful working conditions are well known, but professional boundaries remain clear.
The NHS code of conduct makes it explicit that personal relationships and private behaviour cannot compromise patient care.
Dr Anjum’s case will likely be used as a cautionary example in future discussions about workplace discipline and clinical responsibility.
The GMC tribunal is continuing its hearing, with a decision expected soon. The panel will weigh Dr Anjum’s admission of guilt, his remorse, the absence of patient harm, and the need to preserve public confidence.
Sanctions could range from temporary suspension to permanent removal from the medical register.
Whatever the final outcome, the case has already become a defining example of medical misconduct in the UK.
It demonstrates how a single lapse in judgement can have serious consequences for professional credibility and public trust in healthcare systems.
