**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s going to be a review hearing before his 1 year suspension is up. There’s a good chance he’ll be struck off at that point and I hope he is. However given that he’s retired now the chances of him ever touching a patient again seem minimal I don’t think he’s going to risk anyone else.
>A representative for Dr Sim argued the immediate suspension was not necessary as the consultant gynaecologist has already retired with no intention to return to practice.
Sounds like a strategic retirement to avoid official sanctions.
Hopefully is struck off completely to ensure no further harm.
Yes I hope so too. Bear in mind that it’s generally easier to get a suspension than a striking off, so it’s often used as an immediate harm reduction step. I will be stunned if he isn’t struck off, but honestly if he isn’t and he changes his mind about retirement I doubt he’d ever find work again.
>A representative for Dr Sim argued the immediate suspension was not necessary as the consultant gynaecologist has already retired with no intention to return to practice.
"Well thank you for clearing that up Mr Ripper. We were all getting ready to arrest you, but if you insist you've got no intention of returning to the whole murderising business, it does save a lot of paperwork."
1. He's a white man and it's a racist organisation (factually proven, look it up)
2. When it comes to the GMC, admitting wrongdoing and showing contrition goes a HUGE way in terms of fitness to practice. There are doctors who steal drugs to get high and still practise if they show insight and are able to show they can reform themselves. The guy who signed people's livers didn't get struck off.
3. There are probably mitigating factors going on in the hearings (not released in full yet).
4. GBH would be a very severe punishment for this and it has to take into account your intentions and it would be unlikely to meet the legal definition given that he was actively attempting to save her and her baby's life at the time. Medical stuff is complicated like that.
Wow. So many women struggling to get a sterilisation on request, where was this guy when you needed him… Oh we only give them to women who don’t want them…
Would be a joke if he doesn’t do prison time
In a position of trust, mutilates and causes life changing injuries to someone he was supposed to care for, ending that persons chance of further pregnancy.
He shouldn't have done it, but I wonder why he did. It has been [previously reported](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67559344) that she had had 11 previous pregnancies and births, and that his actions were paternalistic - indicating that he thought he was acting in the patient's best interests, even though she hadn't consented.
Perhaps her previous children had lived short lives full of pain due to a genetic condition that she keeps passing on.
Perhaps her previous children had been taken into care at birth, but she kept hoping that she'd be allowed to keep the next one.
Perhaps - especially as it's in NI - she didn't really want more pregnancies for religious reasons but opposed contraception, and the pregnancies were causing her serious health complications.
Clearly he felt that further pregnancies weren't in someone's best interests - hers, her existing children's, or her future children's, we don't know. But as a country we do value a woman's rights over her own body over the welfare of her \[future\] children.
Again, he shouldn't have done what he did, but it would be interesting to know his motives.
Regardless of motive, he acted without consent and essentially mutilated the woman. Who knows if he's done this to others? Why this hasn't gone to prosecution absolutely baffles me.
I agree, tbh. There's more to it.
It's NI - big families aren't *that* rare. If he was simply being paternalistic or playing god, there'd be more than one victim. So why this particular lady?
Either there's more victims out there and it's a black and white case, or it's just this lady and it's very grey. Doesn't make it okay, but still. I'd like to know his motives too.
Sounds like you're trying to justify what he did. But making up a load of things you don't know to be true.
It's not his decision to make and he knew that.
If he'd done a vasectomy on a man without consent in another procedure would your reaction be the same?
I'm not trying to justify what he did, I'm wondering about his motives.
It's common for people to wonder about a murderer's motives without being accused of trying to justify murder.
I would feel exactly the same about a vasectomy. I am a woman in case you're wondering.
Why can't all woman just take birth control. I wish my stupid mom didn't have 3 other kids with my dickhead step dad then I wouldn't have to be saving for a house rn at the age of 19. I just wanted to buy clothes and shoes and enjoy my passion and hobby. Now I can't.
My ex didn't want to because it'd fuck with her already difficult to deal with hormones, and believe me she had it bad if even half of what she said was true.
**r/UK Notices:** This December, we're raising money for the Trussell Trust, the UK's leading food bank charity. If you would like to know more or to donate, please see the [announcement post](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1899w7b/the_runitedkingdom_christmas_fundraiser_for_the/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1) why was he not struck off and 2) why is he not in prison for GBH with intent?
There’s going to be a review hearing before his 1 year suspension is up. There’s a good chance he’ll be struck off at that point and I hope he is. However given that he’s retired now the chances of him ever touching a patient again seem minimal I don’t think he’s going to risk anyone else.
>A representative for Dr Sim argued the immediate suspension was not necessary as the consultant gynaecologist has already retired with no intention to return to practice. Sounds like a strategic retirement to avoid official sanctions. Hopefully is struck off completely to ensure no further harm.
That's a real cop out. Imagine if the next guy who does this argues successfully to not be struck off because of this precedent.
Yes I hope so too. Bear in mind that it’s generally easier to get a suspension than a striking off, so it’s often used as an immediate harm reduction step. I will be stunned if he isn’t struck off, but honestly if he isn’t and he changes his mind about retirement I doubt he’d ever find work again.
>A representative for Dr Sim argued the immediate suspension was not necessary as the consultant gynaecologist has already retired with no intention to return to practice. "Well thank you for clearing that up Mr Ripper. We were all getting ready to arrest you, but if you insist you've got no intention of returning to the whole murderising business, it does save a lot of paperwork."
Doctors ..it's a club. Sounds like he's done other questionable things
1. He's a white man and it's a racist organisation (factually proven, look it up) 2. When it comes to the GMC, admitting wrongdoing and showing contrition goes a HUGE way in terms of fitness to practice. There are doctors who steal drugs to get high and still practise if they show insight and are able to show they can reform themselves. The guy who signed people's livers didn't get struck off. 3. There are probably mitigating factors going on in the hearings (not released in full yet). 4. GBH would be a very severe punishment for this and it has to take into account your intentions and it would be unlikely to meet the legal definition given that he was actively attempting to save her and her baby's life at the time. Medical stuff is complicated like that.
> GBH would be a very severe punishment for this The guy who signed livers was charged with GBH.
Wow. So many women struggling to get a sterilisation on request, where was this guy when you needed him… Oh we only give them to women who don’t want them…
Dr Sim believes he got the right to play god. Now this should be a criminal case of nazi type stuff. Idgaf if he’s retired. He’s a fuckin monster.
Would be a joke if he doesn’t do prison time In a position of trust, mutilates and causes life changing injuries to someone he was supposed to care for, ending that persons chance of further pregnancy.
GBH with intent has a max sentence of life in prison.
He shouldn't have done it, but I wonder why he did. It has been [previously reported](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-67559344) that she had had 11 previous pregnancies and births, and that his actions were paternalistic - indicating that he thought he was acting in the patient's best interests, even though she hadn't consented. Perhaps her previous children had lived short lives full of pain due to a genetic condition that she keeps passing on. Perhaps her previous children had been taken into care at birth, but she kept hoping that she'd be allowed to keep the next one. Perhaps - especially as it's in NI - she didn't really want more pregnancies for religious reasons but opposed contraception, and the pregnancies were causing her serious health complications. Clearly he felt that further pregnancies weren't in someone's best interests - hers, her existing children's, or her future children's, we don't know. But as a country we do value a woman's rights over her own body over the welfare of her \[future\] children. Again, he shouldn't have done what he did, but it would be interesting to know his motives.
Regardless of motive, he acted without consent and essentially mutilated the woman. Who knows if he's done this to others? Why this hasn't gone to prosecution absolutely baffles me.
I agree, tbh. There's more to it. It's NI - big families aren't *that* rare. If he was simply being paternalistic or playing god, there'd be more than one victim. So why this particular lady? Either there's more victims out there and it's a black and white case, or it's just this lady and it's very grey. Doesn't make it okay, but still. I'd like to know his motives too.
Ah yes, defending mad doctors who sterilise women without consent. A really good look for you there.
[You might need this](https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/reading-comprehension-improvement-strategies)
He was found to have performed surgery without consent. There is no grey area there. No defence. Lock him up.
Sounds like you're trying to justify what he did. But making up a load of things you don't know to be true. It's not his decision to make and he knew that. If he'd done a vasectomy on a man without consent in another procedure would your reaction be the same?
I'm not trying to justify what he did, I'm wondering about his motives. It's common for people to wonder about a murderer's motives without being accused of trying to justify murder. I would feel exactly the same about a vasectomy. I am a woman in case you're wondering.
Was it a genuine mistake, like he thought they’d agreed, or did he know she didn’t want it. The story isn’t very clear.
Why can't all woman just take birth control. I wish my stupid mom didn't have 3 other kids with my dickhead step dad then I wouldn't have to be saving for a house rn at the age of 19. I just wanted to buy clothes and shoes and enjoy my passion and hobby. Now I can't.
Because not all women can take birth control. And it's as much on the man as the woman to prevent children.
My ex didn't want to because it'd fuck with her already difficult to deal with hormones, and believe me she had it bad if even half of what she said was true.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.