In 2007, Kristin Scott Stoker, a chiropractor who practices in Wahroonga, Australia, was convicted of indecent exposure. Just recently, the appeals process ended with a confirmation of that conviction. The chiropractor has been sentenced to 50 hours of community service. He must also have a chaperon present for the next two years whenever treating female clients under 45.
The sentence may seem small in comparison to the charges. After all, chiropractors, like other types of health care professionals, have an obligation to uphold ethical guidelines. In instances such as this, violating those guidelines can harm patients.
According to the prosecutor, Stoker exposed himself to a female client in 2007. The witness says that she bent over to pick up a piece of jewelry that she had dropped. When she stood up, Stoker had exposed himself. The event took place in Kristin’s office during a treatment.
Stoker, of course, has a slightly different story. According to him, the patient had been looking at his crotch throughout the treatment. This caused him to notice that his zipper was broken. When she bent over to retrieve something from the floor, he used it as an opportunity to fix the broken zipper. By doing so, however, he unintentionally exposed himself to the patient.
Given the he-said she-said nature of the event, perhaps Stoker’s sentence is more fitting than it first seems. It does, however, reveal some problems within the Australian chiropractic system and this specific ruling.
First, it only makes sense for male chiropractors to have female chaperons present when treating female clients. The chaperon;s presence protects the client and the chiropractor. If a chaperon had been present during this scenario, then she could have given credence to one of the party’s perspectives.
The second problem with the ruling is that it only forces Stoker to use a chaperon while treating women under 45. This makes several assumptions. Perhaps most problematic, it assumes that Stoker exposed himself because of her age. This may or may not be true. The ruling, therefore, only protects a portion of female patients instead of them all.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
