A 76-year-old doctor was sentenced to one week's jail on Tuesday, January 27, after being convicted of molesting a sedated patient following a colonoscopy procedure, an offence that was witnessed and later reported by two senior nurses in the same procedure room.
The doctor, who claimed trial, and the hospital where the incident occurred cannot be identified due to a gag order protecting the victim's identity. The victim was 20 years old at the time of the offence, which took place on December 24, 2021, in an endoscopy procedure room. The doctor was 72 then.
District Judge Shawn Ho found that there was no medical justification for the doctor to examine the patient's breasts after the colonoscopy, which had been conducted to investigate bleeding piles. In a written judgment dated October 29, 2025, Judge Ho detailed the reasons for convicting the doctor, placing significant weight on the consistent and credible testimonies of the two nurses.
Both nurses testified that they saw the doctor using both hands to touch the patient underneath her hospital gown, with one nurse stating that his hands were ungloved.
One of the nurses asked the doctor whether he had obtained consent to touch the patient's breasts, but he did not respond. Judge Ho noted that both nurses were experienced and said they had never seen any doctor conduct a breast examination on a sedated patient in the endoscopy room, including during procedures involving the accused.
It was not disputed that the doctor had touched the patient's breasts. The key issue before the court was whether the patient had consented to the act. The nurses testified that the patient appeared drowsy, while an independent medical expert told the court that doctors generally do not and should not obtain consent from a person who is sedated.
The victim testified that after being sedated, she experienced a "blackout state" and was unaware of what was happening around her. She had been administered Dormicum, a sedative the doctor himself described as being very strong. In his testimony, the doctor said he had told the victim that the drug was similar to substances used to spike drinks in nightclubs, rendering individuals totally asleep and unaware of their surroundings.
Judge Ho said this meant the doctor knew it was unlikely the victim could give consent after being sedated. Although a defence medical expert suggested the victim had regained consciousness by the time her breasts were examined, the court noted that this opinion was based solely on the doctor's account of events.
The defence attempted to undermine the credibility of one of the nurses, claiming she had been scolded by the doctor on the day of the procedure and on earlier occasions, giving her a motive to fabricate her account.
The nurse denied this claim, and the other nurse said she had never witnessed such scolding. The judge rejected the defence's argument that the nurses' accounts had been influenced by discussions between them, noting that this allegation was not raised during cross-examination.
The court also considered whether there were legitimate medical reasons for a breast examination. An independent expert rejected the possibility that it was done to check for an intra-abdominal tumour, as no such diagnosis existed. The expert also dismissed the idea of opportunistic health screening, saying such an examination would require prior explanation and explicit consent.
"There is no clinical association between rectal bleeding or lower abdominal pain and a breast condition," the expert testified, as quoted by The Straits Times, adding that there could be no implied consent for a breast examination in this case.
In mitigation, defence lawyers said the doctor was suffering from Stage 4 prostate cancer with an estimated life expectancy of six to 12 months and asked for a fine or a minimal jail term. Prosecutors, however, sought between four and six weeks' imprisonment. The court ultimately imposed a one-week jail sentence.
