Erectile dysfunction current news.

Dr Moloy Prakash Sahu, who worked at the Wellman Clinic, 57 Harley Street, for a year, faced several allegations.

These ranged from providing treatment without medical penile impotence
to “irresponsible prescribing”.

The General Medical Council said his practice was “less than satisfactory” but did not amount to serious professional misconduct.

'Boost'

The four-day hearing was held after three patients at the clinic complained to the GMC.

It heard that the average patient was given a three-month course of impotence treatment made up of vitamins, creams and washes, costing 1,500 to 2,000 - many of which were “useless if not dangerous”.

One of the three was prescribed a drug which, mixed with an dysfunction erectile impotence drug he was already taking, could have proved fatal.

That patient was also treated for a condition he did not suffer.

Dr Sahu denied it was “irresponsible” to prescribe the drug Yohimbin to one man, saying: “He had erectile problems and it is a medicine you can give.”

He also said his employers at the clinic insisted vitamin injections be given as a matter of policy.

Dr Sahu admitted the “harmless” injection was a placebo and that he never told patients it had no medical justification, but said it could give a patient “a bit of a boost”.

'Less than satisfactory'

Dr Sahu, of Impotence device, east London, worked at the clinic as medical officer between July 2000 and June 2001.

He said he became “dissatisfied” and quit the post because the clinic was badly managed and poorly equipped.

Dr Sahu was cleared of failing to ensure his patients were given sufficient information about their conditions, and failing to keep proper drug records.

The doctor was also acquitted of treating patients without the required expertise and failing to make sure patients gave proper or informed consent for treatment.

A number of other allegations were withdrawn following legal impotence psychological cause.

The hearing's chairman John Shaw said: “These shortcomings taken together did not cross the threshold of serious professional misconduct.

“The committee therefore finds you not guilty of serious professional misconduct.”