A retired Cork doctor who carried out internal examinations of women patients "for his own perverse purposes", made a pornographic video of one patient and who bullied another into having her hymen broken for no medical reason, has had his name erased from the medical register by order of the High Court.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton upheld findings by the Medical Council that James Barry was guilty of more than 40 counts of gross professional misconduct in relation to eight patients, arising from secretly video-taping some and carrying out inappropriate internal examinations of others.
Mr Barry (81), Lauriston Lodge, Glanmire, Cork, had denied the claims against him and showed "no insight" regarding his conduct and was guilty of a "gross breach of ethics", the judge added.
On the basis of such findings, Mr Justice Charleton directed the erasure of Mr Barry's name from the register of medical practitioners in Ireland and awarded costs against Mr Barry, who had represented himself telling the court that he was "impecunious".
Outside court, Mr Barry said he was not happy with the judge's decision and reiterated his belief that he had not done anything wrong. Mr Barry had opposed the Medical Council's decision of September 12th, 2006, to strike his name from the register after he was found guilty of 44 counts of professional misconduct relating to eight patients.
The case arose after a complaint was made in 1995 to the Medical Council alleging Mr Barry, who had practised in Cork city from the mid-1960s, had engaged in improper conduct with a patient.
The council's fitness to practise committee began an inquiry and a court order restrained him from practising medicine pending the outcome. Legal challenges by Mr Barry meant that inquiry was put on hold. Criminal proceedings brought against him were ended following a European Court of Human Rights decision in his favour in December 2005.
After that court's decision, the fitness to practise committee inquired into complaints relating to Mr Barry's treatment of eight female patients and, based on its findings, the council decided his name should be struck from the register.
In upholding that decision, Mr Justice Charleton dealt with the evidence relating to the eight complainants.
In relation to Ms C, who attended Mr Barry as a schoolgirl, the judge said he was satisfied her evidence was truthful. "I am certain Dr Barry exploited her condition as a vulnerable schoolgirl for his own personal sexual gratification by stripping her while she was under a state of hypnosis and unlawfully fondling her and penetrating her manually," he said.
In relation to Ms A, she alleged Mr Barry was making pornographic films of her for sale. Two of several videos found in a floor safe in Mr Barry's home by gardaí were played to the court. One featured Ms A and was of a pornographic nature, the judge said.
Mr Justice Charleton upheld all but one of the findings of the Medical Council relating to Ms A, including that Mr Barry made sexual advances, made indecent suggestions and behaved indecently and undertook inappropriate photographic recordings. He said there was no evidence on one count, that she was coerced by threats or promises to engage in indecent behaviour.
A third patient, Ms E, had alleged she would always get internal examinations from Mr Barry when she attended him between the ages of nine to 17. The judge upheld all the findings relating to Ms E, found she was grossly violated by him, she was filmed naked without her consent and digitally penetrated by him "purely out of a desire to gain a prurient indulgence for himself".
Mr Justice Charleton found Ms D was also subjected to digital internal examinations for no medical reasons and was required to stand in underwear in a light chamber so Mr Barry could view her body.
He upheld all the findings of misconduct relating to Ms B, who alleged Mr Barry penetrated her digitally, suggested her hymen be removed and watched her standing naked in a machine.
Patient H, who first went to see Mr Barry when in her later teens, was also subject to unnecessary digital penetrations.
In relation to Ms G, the judge agreed the evidence in her case described gross professional misconduct over years, including her being bullied into having her hymen broken by Mr Barry. She was required to strip for no better reason than that Mr Barry wished to look at her.
Patient F had alleged Mr Barry suggested she have an abortion when she was found to be pregnant. He had also asked her to strip naked, examined her breasts and examined her internally, allegedly to establish if she was pregnant. The judge upheld all the findings of misconduct against Mr Barry in her case.
