Dr. Henry Smith admits to having sex with one of his patients when he was a practicing psychiatrist, but says in court papers that he shouldn’t be punished because he did her no harm.
The patient, Dr. Abigail McNally, is a licensed psychologist in Massachusetts who was undergoing psychoanalysis with Smith as part of her training program at the Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis to become a psychoanalyst. She is suing Smith in Middlesex Superior Court for negligence, reckless infliction of emotional stress, and unfair and deceptive practices under the state Consumer Protection Act. McNally’s husband Brian is also a plaintiff in the case, alleging Smith caused him to lose the “companionship, society, services, and affection” of his wife.
Having sex with a patient is not a crime in Massachusetts, but it is grounds for revocation of a physician’s license. Smith voluntarily gave up his medical license in June 2010 – 10 months before the lawsuit was filed – and resigned from a slew of professional psychiatric organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association, The Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, and the Psychoanalytic Institute of New England. All of the groups have codes of ethics that say having sex with a patient is unethical.
McNally’s attorney, Clyde Bergstresser, suggested that Smith’s decision to give up his license and resign from the professional organizations was no coincidence. “You [Smith] repeatedly tried to dissuade your patient from reporting your negligent and unethical misconduct,” he said in a consumer demand letter. “And when you became concerned that you might not be able to control her, you surrendered your medical license and resigned form all the professional societies in which you were a member to avoid the inevitable and appropriate public censure for your outrageous conduct.”
The attorneys representing Smith and McNally did not respond to requests for comment.
Smith was a heavyweight in the world of psychiatry. He frequently contributed to psychoanalytic journals and edited or served on the editorial board of a number of publications. He also served as a training and supervising analyst, and it was in that role he was hired by McNally, who saw Smith from 2005 to 2009 up to six times a week for analysis.
In court documents, McNally said that Smith “engaged in multiple boundary violations” starting in 2006 by inappropriately touching her, kissing her, fondling her, discussing his marriage troubles with her, giving her gifts, and eventually having sexual relations with her on the “analytic couch.”
The alleged gifts included earrings, a necklace, family photographs, and eroticized cards, including one that portrays Smith as a pig being stroked and comforted. “I would be hard-pressed to find a better metaphor,” said Bergstresser in the consumer demand letter.
That letter also claims that Smith told McNally that she was the most important person in his life. It also said the boundary violations by Smith “continued not only on the analytic couch but also in a bedroom in your home as well as outside the office.”
Prior to filing her lawsuit, court records indicate McNally demanded $3 million to avoid going to trial, but was offered only $100,000. She is seeking a jury trial.
McNally alleged that Smith violated her privacy by telling his wife, Dr. Jane Kite, about their sexual relationship, mentioning McNally by name. Kite, a psychologist and psychoanalyst, referred McNally to her husband.
Although Smith freely admits in a court document that he had sex with McNally, he says he did her and her husband no harm. McNally said she lacked the ability to recognize that she was being harmed as a result of what is known as transference, which is the unconscious attribution of a patient’s feelings about a person from the past on to a therapist.
Smith said McNally’s claim is unbelievable. “Dr. McNally was not a mentally-ill patient,” Smith said in court papers. “Further, Dr. McNally is a nationally respected psychologist and is well-versed in the issues of transference… . Dr. McNally has been a licensed psychologist since September 2004, almost two years before any alleged affair occurred. Dr. McNally, a professional who has been trained in handling the transference phenomenon, cannot seriously claim that she was not or should not have been fully cognizant of what occurred during her training analysis.”
The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine says it no longer has jurisdiction over Smith because he gave up his license in 2010. At that time, Smith signed a form under the pains and penalties of perjury saying he had no knowledge of any “present or future complaints” against him. “The board’s authority extends only to a physician’s license, and Dr. Smith no longer has one,” said Russell Aims, the board’s chief of staff.
Minnesota clinical psychologist Gary Schoener, who has written extensively about the sexual misconduct of therapists, said Smith deserves punishment. “Imagine meeting with someone up to six times a week for all those years, hoping to improve your personal adjustment and extend your skills, and earn a higher standing in your profession — all for naught,” Schoener said. “This guy should be doing prison time.”
Renowned sex researchers Masters and Johnson, in the 1970s, were the first to call significant attention to sexual contact between therapists and patients, going so far as to characterize it as rape and arguing that these therapists should be prosecuted.
Beginning with Wisconsin’s criminalization of sex between a therapist and a patient in 1984, a number of states began to consider how they could do more than rely on organizational codes of ethics and disciplinary proceedings to address the problem. Although the laws vary widely, at least 23 states now make sexual abuse of patients by clinicians a criminal act.
Back in the early 1990s, there was an effort to criminalize sexual misconduct by clinicians with patients in Massachusetts, but the legislation failed to pass.
Janet Wohlberg, a victim advocate from Williamstown and herself a victim of sexual abuse by a psychiatrist, said she does “back and forth” on the value of criminalization. “Certainly being able to put a label of ‘criminal act’ on this kind of behavior helps victims and their families, friend and society-at-large understand this kind of behavior for what it is,” she said. “However, I also fear that even fewer victims will come forward if they think their abuser will be hurt, arrested, or go to jail.”
Source: Colman M Herman, “Sex with patient caused no harm, doctor says; Suit alleges negligence, violations of consumer law,” Commonwealth, January 26, 2012.