Shine has no memory of examining four men
HE SAID HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS PATIENT WAS “A PERFECTLY NORMAL DOCTOR PATIENT” AND ADDED “I TREATED HIM WITH THE GREATEST OF RESPECT”.
A retired surgeon who denies groping young male patients at a Drogheda hospital has told a jury that he has no memory of treating four of the complainants.
Michael Shine (85) of Wellington Rd. in Dublin has pleaded not guilty at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to eight charges of indecently assaulting six patients at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital and at his private clinic, both in Drogheda, on dates between 1964 and 1991.
The evidence has ended in the trial and lawyers will give their closing speeches to the jury this Tuesday.
In his direct evidence Mr Shine told the jury that he would never do anything that would embarrass or upset a patient.
He said that he did not indecently assault any of the complainants and has no memory of treating four of the alleged victims.
The jury has heard that there are no medical records linking three of these complainants to Mr Shine.
The accused accepted that he did treat two of the complainants. He agreed also that there are medical records of him attending to these patients.
He said he remembered treating one of these complainants for undescended testicles in 1974. He said he would have examined the testicles every time this patient came to see him but denied that he ever massaged the base of the patient’s penis.
He said his relationship with this patient was “a perfectly normal doctor patient” and added “I treated him with the greatest of respect”.
Under cross-examination from Bernard Condon SC, prosecuting, he denied having taken advantage of this patient.
He accepted that he did treat another complainant, sometime around 1976, for an infected in-growing toenail. The jury has heard that two letters linking this complainant to Mr Shine exist including a letter from Mr Shine to the patient’s GP.
The accused told Hugh Hartnett SC, defending, that he examined the glands in the upper part of this patient’s thigh because of the risk of the infection spreading.
Mr Condon put it to him that he had just “made this up” in order to cover up his alleged groping of the boy’s testicles and penis for around two minutes. Mr Shine said he was speaking from “my wide experience of how I’d see this person”.
Mr Shine told Hugh Hartnett SC, defending, that the hospital in Drogheda was a “busy busy” hospital.
He said he saw around 60 out patients a day, and another 30 in-patients on his rounds, as well as “casualty patients as they come and go”.
He said “there was a nurse always present when I was seeing patients”.
Under cross-examination Mr Condon asked him would he allow for the possibility that in the 1000s of patients he would see every year there was no nurse present during some of these examinations.
Mr Shine repeated that “there was always a nurse present”.
Before evidence resumed on Friday morning Judge Cormac Quinn told the jury that he was withdrawing the charge in relation to one complainant.
He said that he would direct them to find Mr Shine not guilty of indecently assaulting the 15 year old boy sometime between 1988 and 1991. Mr Shine was alleged to have groped the boy’s genitalia during an examination of a foot injury.
The second week of the trial began with an alleged victim saying that he told himself for years that there was nothing improper about what the doctor allegedly did.
The complainant told the trial of Michael Shine that during an examination of his testes the doctor massaged the base of his penis.
On day five of the trial, the sixth complainant testified that in 1975 he collapsed at school and was sent to his GP. His GP referred him to Mr Shine and during an examination Mr Shine diagnosed bi-lateral undescended testicles and a hernia on both sides.
Mr Shine later operated on him and corrected the issues. The complainant said he later attended at Mr Shine’s clinic for follow-up examinations. He was aged around 15 at the time.
He said during these examinations, Mr Shine would occasionally have touched his penis but in the context he didn’t consider it unusual at the time and it didn’t bother him.
He said in hindsight he thought that “perhaps he was testing my reaction”.
He told Cathleen Noctor BL, prosecuting, that there were two later incidents that he did consider a problem at the time.
On the first occasion, he testified, the doctor asked him if he had a difficulty having an erection. The complainant said he considered this a legitimate question.
He said Dr Shine then proceeded to massage the base of his penis and said to the patient “not to worry”. The witness said he thought this was legitimate too but said he didn’t want to get an erection.
“I tried not to think about what was happening. I didn’t want to get an erection. I felt that was the purpose of it,” he said.
He said the massaging went on for a considerable length of time and he wanted it to stop.
“There was an element of wondering if it was legitimate or if it wasn’t. The best I could do was disassociate myself from what was happening, to put my mind somewhere else,” he said.
He said on the next appointment with Dr Shine, the doctor again massaged the base of his penis. The witness said he again wanted to avoid becoming erect so he decided to ejaculate.
He said he did not see any ejaculate but he felt he had ejaculated. He said Mr Shine said to him: “‘I’m sorry, don’t worry’, or words to that effect”.
Under cross-examination, he denied that he was judging the events of the examination with hindsight.
He said he had “no doubt, at the time of the first occasion, that it was inappropriate”.
“I don’t believe his hand should have been at the base of my penis. It was wrong,” he said, adding that he had tried to convince himself for years that it was appropriate for the examination.
The jury heard evidence from six men who have described Mr Shine allegedly groping their genitalia during medical examinations for injuries such as cuts to a knee, a broken ankle, an injury to a finger, an in-growing toenail and a stomach cyst.
On day seven of the trial, Richard Stephens, a expert medical witness, told Bernard Condon SC, prosecuting, that there was no medical reasons for these examinations to include examinations of the genitalia.
Asked about the evidence of the second complainant who alleged Mr Shine felt his testicles during a follow up examination after a traffic accident, Mr Stephens told Hugh Hartnett SC, defending, that “it’s never unreasonable to examine the groin in a male in a trauma case” such as an accident.
He agreed with Bernard Condon SC, prosecuting, that the assault on this patient was alleged to have taken place during a follow up examination and not when the patient was first admitted after the crash.
Mr Stephens told Judge Cormac Quinn that an examination of the groin was different to and did not involve an examination of the testes and would be done with a sheet covering the testes and genitalia.
He that it was never wrong to examine a testicle as long as it was brief and appropriate. He said such an examination should only take a moment unless there was a problem.
He agreed with Mr Hartnett that in a busy clinic sometimes shortcuts from best medical practice might be taken.