A Google scientist who slept with a girl he first met when she was just 13 has avoided being struck off the medical register.
Dr Cian Hughes, a leading AI research scientist, first met the besotted schoolgirl when he was a 23-year-old fourth year medical student doing work experience at a hospital.
The girl, who was 13 at the time, was admitted for treatment in 2011 and they formed a close relationship, in which he poured deep praise on her poetry skills and was even invited for sleepovers at her family home.
They began a sexual relationship in 2015, when she was just 18 and he was 27 having just started working part time for Google DeepMind Health. They broke up in 2018.
Hughes, now 37, is currently informatics lead at Google Health and one of the leading global experts on developing the use of Artificial Intelligence in medicine.
He was reported to police in 2020 by the woman, now 27, and was quizzed by detectives. He was referred for a disciplinary hearing after no criminal proceedings were taken against him
At the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) Hughes, from Dublin, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct but escaped with a 12 months suspension – despite calls from the General Medical Council (GMC) for him to be struck off.
This week the woman, known only as Patient A, and campaign groups criticised the decision as ‘lax and light touch’ and said Hughes should have been barred from the medical profession.
In a statement the patient said: ‘The penalty feels very light touch and too lax for the impact he’s had and the things he has done to me. My confidence in the medical profession is now pretty much non-existent.
‘The reason I followed through with this for the last five years has been about making sure that other doctors don’t do it to other patients.
‘The age gap, my mental health at the time, the way we met, how much I trusted him and my naivety around relationships contributed to a very unhealthy power imbalance. The long-term consequences of his actions for me are potentially going to be lifelong.
‘I had always said I wanted to give oral evidence but the process was victim hostile and didn’t allow me to have a voice or even be treated as a victim by the MPTS.’
The tribunal, which was held in Manchester, was told Patient A was about to start her GCSEs when she was admitted to Bristol Royal Hospital for Children in March 2011 for an undisclosed procedure .
Hughes – who was then studying medicine at the city’s university – was allowed to observe and assist with the surgery.
He subsequently visited her on the ward, forwarded her copies of her X-rays from his personal email and after she was discharged swapped emails with the girl over a two year period discussing school, University choices, and her ongoing treatment.
During the exchanges Patient A sent Dr Hughes more than 50 poems which she had written asking for his feedback.
She told him: ‘Think you’re probably the only medical person I know who doesn’t seem to forget I’m still only 15 sometimes!
‘I have to admit that I really miss having you around in meetings and surgical days (honestly I don’t mind your cold stethoscope or big arrows) to translate the medical jargon, make me smile/laugh and realise that I’m not superhuman and get nervous about the prospect of future plans and surgery.’
In response he said: ‘I read your new poems and they are fantastic, you have a real talent. But I’m not sure if I would publish them. I think they are in some ways quite private and personal, once you publish something you can never take it back out of the public domain.
‘If I were you I would keep writing and save them, then in the future you could always publish a retrospective selection. But that’s just my thoughts, and I’m quite a private person.’
He also gave her an iPod touch for Christmas. The girl moved schools to attend sixth form and was 17 when Hughes had completed his medical training and was working as a surgical trainee.
In October 2014 he messaged Patient A and asked if she would be interested in a romantic relationship with him and they arranged to meet where they kissed.
The hearing was told the relationship then continued with ‘extensive messaging on a daily basis and of an increasingly personal and sexual nature.’
Over Christmas that year he was invited to stay at Patient A’s family home but caused annoyance when they kissed in front of her parents. They also exchanged Christmas presents, including green socks which became an ‘in joke’ between them.
The girl would regularly visit Hughes’ flat where they again kissed and engaged in some ‘limited sexual activity.’ They also sent messages to each other detailing sexual acts and fantasies which they described as ‘daydreams’.
In May 2015, Hughes attended Patient A’s 18th birthday party having been invited by her parents and the following weekend the pair had sex on several occasions and even talked of marriage. But the relationship began to fizzle out and in 2018 he failed to respond to her emails.
She reported the matter to the Metropolitan Police in June 2020 and Hughes was quizzed by police in April 2021 and provided a prepared statement. The investigation was closed with no criminal action taken.
For the GMC Ms Colette Renton said: ‘Patient A and Dr Hughes started communication when was not yet 14. It is hard to quantify the magnitude of the impression that Dr Hughes left on Patient A.
‘She grew from an adolescent into a young adult with the constant influence of Dr Hughes over more than six years. Dr Hughes was a formative influence on her life and the abrupt end of the relationship was and continues to be devastating to Patient A.
‘She was being placed in very adult situations when she lacked the maturity to be able to deal with the issues that arose.’
Hughes, who is currently married, told the hearing: ‘Receiving this complaint has been a very traumatic personal experience that has caused me to deeply reflect on my behaviours. I feel deeply personally responsible and sorry for how she feels about our relationship today.’
For Hughes Ms Rebecca Harris said: ‘Dr Hughes has apologised for the hurt and distress his actions have caused Patient A.
‘He has accepted that he opened the door for the inappropriate communication but there can be no suggestion he selected Patient A when she was 13 as someone he wanted to a pursue a relationship with.
‘When the relationship progressed Dr Hughes was a very young, naïve, inexperienced, emotionally immature doctor who got it very wrong indeed.’
MPTS chairman Mr Duncan Ritchie said: ‘Dr Hughes abused his professional position and entered into an improper relationship with a vulnerable patient who he had met in a professional capacity.
‘However the Tribunal did not consider he exploited Patient A’s vulnerability and the relationship had not developed during Dr Hughes’ professional contact with Patient A – had this been the case, the misconduct would have been more serious.’
Rebecca Cox, co-founder of campaign group Surviving in Scrubs, which has campaigned against sexual assault within the NHS, said: ‘Sadly, this fits with a trend of sanction decisions that do not reflect the severity of the case or distress caused to victims. The MPTS repeatedly fail victims of sexual misconduct and violence.’
And Prof Carrie Newlands, a consultant surgeon, and co-lead for the working party on sexual misconduct in surgery at the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, said: ‘This is yet another case of misconduct by a doctor against someone vulnerable with a significant power imbalance, and where despite the GMC recommending erasure, the MPTS have again given a lesser sanction.’
