Dr. J. is not only considered a specialist in sexually transmitted diseases in Berlin. But also as a doctor who can respond particularly well to the needs of LGBTQ patients. He has treated thousands of people in his practice since the 1990s; colleagues describe him as committed and caring, as someone who is there for his patients day and night. And who just gave people with an HIV diagnosis confidence.
But in doing so, Dr. J. Crossed boundaries. Several men report that Dr. J. had touched her genitals inappropriately and repeatedly carried out examinations in the genital area which, in her opinion, were not even necessary. Since April, Dr. J. is therefore responsible before the Tiergarten District Court. Prosecutors accuse him of using tests on five patients between 2011 and 2013 to get sexually aroused. On Monday he was found guilty of one case.
Dr. J., 63, gray hair, dark suit, sits in court between his three defense lawyers. He listens with interest and keeps nodding, especially when other medical professionals appear to testify. As if this were some kind of medical training and not a lawsuit. It is not the first time that there have been allegations against him. As early as 2013, patients complained about him to the Medical Association, which then initiated a professional investigation. In 2014, the public prosecutor also began investigating. Then nothing happened for a long time – until the “Me Too” debate. Not only women turned to the public with experiences of sexual assault, but also some men. Including patients from Dr. J.
A “Me Too” case that touches on taboos – abuse between men
What is supposed to have happened in practice is now considered the first major “Me Too” case in Germany’s queer scene. According to experts, it touches on a topic that has long been taboo: sexual assaults among men. In a scene that has had to struggle for a long time to be accepted by society at all, it is difficult for many to bring such incidents to the public. And like most “Me Too” cases, this one is about things that happen between two people, without witnesses, in an enclosed space.
The Tiergarten District Court must therefore first find out what Dr. J. ever happened. Several men take the stand and are questioned down to the last detail about their genital examinations. A man named Dr. B. reports, for example, Dr. J. had touched his penis after a urethral examination until he got an erection. Dr. J. denies these and all other allegations in court. All manipulations were carried out as part of the usual examinations, they were medically, not sexually motivated. There may have been “misunderstandings” among the patients.
The appraisers take turns in court
What is a medical act in the genital area, where does a sexual assault begin? In order to clarify this, the appraisers take turns in court at a certain point. Graphics of the male anatomy are projected onto a screen via a projector. Terms such as “digitorectal examination”, “urethral swab” or “proctological findings” fill the room. A medical expert says that it is quite common to scan as many areas as possible as part of the rectal examination, which is perceived as very uncomfortable, “when I am already on site, I examine everything that is there”. Nor could he judge whether Dr. J. Inappropriately touching the genitals. But there are some things that were “rather unusual”. The fact that witnesses described, for example, that they should have undressed completely naked, you hardly ever do something like that in such investigations. Or that a patient should have given a sperm sample in the presence of the doctor – “that is not so customary”.
It’s a long and difficult process. Much happens behind closed doors. Again and again the defense doubts the credibility of the witnesses, a testimony psychologist is heard. He says he is not getting any further with his diagnostic options. Although the testimony of the witnesses did not appear to have been made out of thin air, he could not rule out that the men interpreted something in the practice or that Dr. J. wanted to burden. In court it becomes clear once again: It is one thing to report suspected sexual assault. And something completely different to be able to prove it in court.
The authorities had known about the allegations for years
The judiciary’s eagerness to move the case forward quickly was also not very great. In April 2016, charges were brought against Dr. J. charged, but the trial did not begin until April 2021 – shortly before the accused would become statute-barred. A lawyer for the accessory prosecution said that this had put additional strain on the men concerned.
The Tiergarten District Court sentenced Dr. J. on Monday for sexual abuse taking advantage of a treatment relationship to a fine of 45,000 euros. However, it only finds the doctor guilty in one case, that of Dr. B. Dr. J. manipulated the penis, allegedly in order to be able to carry out a urethral swab. But Dr. B. was able to demonstrate that the touch only took place after the smear, “there was no longer any medical reason for this”. Dr. B. is credible, there are no doubts about his presentation.
In the other cases, however, it is not clear whether the allegations are correct, the judge said. One witness, for example, had a very high level of stressful ambition, while another witness, due to his mental state, was not clear about whether he was telling the truth. That Dr. J. was sentenced to a fine of 150 daily rates of 300 euros each and not to a prison sentence, as the public prosecutor had demanded, is due, among other things, to the length of the proceedings. This is also true for Dr. J. been stressful.
For a lawyer for the accessory prosecution, the verdict is still a success. On the one hand, because there is even a conviction – 80 percent of the investigations into sexual abuse would be stopped before a trial could even come about. On the other hand, the process “kicked off a lot” in the scene. It gave relevance to the topic of sexualized assaults and “encouraged those affected to speak”. The verdict is not yet legally binding.