Doctor on trial for raping patient: Accused had seen urologist for erectile dysfunction, low libido

Doctor on trial for raping patient: Accused had seen urologist for erectile dysfunction, low libido

The 67-year-old, who is accused of raping a young woman during a late-night consultation at his clinic, said that he has suffered from those conditions for some time.

Wee Teong Boo
Wee Teong Boo (second from left) seen at the Supreme Court on Apr 30, 2018. (Photo: TODAY/Koh Mui Fong)

SINGAPORE: The general practitioner accused of raping a patient during a medical examination told the court on Thursday that he has been seen by a urologist for erectile dysfunction and low libido.

Taking the stand in his defence for the first time since his trial began on Apr 30, Wee Teong Boo, 67, said that it takes him a while to achieve an erection. The court heard, however, that he is not impotent.

Wee is accused of raping his patient on Dec 30, 2015, during a late-night examination at his clinic in Bedok. The victim, then 23, had complained of frequent urination and an itch in her genitals.

She cannot be named due to a gag order.

In response to questions from defence lawyer Edmond Pereira, Wee said that he consulted the urologist three days after being released from police lock-up on Jan 2, 2016.

He added that he had experienced erectile dysfunction and low libido for some time.

Following an assessment, the urologist diagnosed him with low-level testosterone and a slightly enlarged prostate.

Wee also said that he had seen a separate urologist at Changi General Hospital, as instructed by the police, but that he has not received the results of that medical report.

According to prosecutors, Wee had pulled the victim’s shorts down during an examination of her abdomen on the examination bed at his clinic, and rubbed her private parts over her underwear, asking if that was what was itchy.

Wee then asked her to lower her shorts and underwear down further in order to check her private parts, before removing them completely.

Wee proceeded to position the victim such that he was between her legs. The victim, according to court documents, heard the sound of a zipper, and felt a poking sensation in her genitals. She had also seen Wee’s penis.

Court documents also showed that a month before the incident, Wee had rubbed the victim’s private parts over her underwear while examining her for gastric discomfort. While she felt uneasy, she did not voice her discomfort, as she assumed it was part of the medical examination. She also trusted Wee, whom she had seen about 20 times before. 


The defence, however, painted a different sequence of events, with Wee saying that he had begun by examining the victim’s abdomen on the examination bed after she had visited the clinic complaining of gastric issues.

He was about to return to the consultation room after completing the examination,  when the victim suddenly told him that her private parts were itchy, he said.

Wee said that he was concerned the victim may have pelvic inflammatory disease, and suggested a pelvic examination, which she agreed to.

This examination, he explained, involved him inserting two fingers into her vagina. He said that this was communicated to the victim.

When asked by Mr Pereira why he did not wear gloves or use lubricant while conducting the examination, Wee replied that he was “caught off-guard” by the patient’s sudden complaint of the itch in her private parts.

He explained that most patients usually raised such complaints while they were in the consultation room rather than in the examination area.  It was also very late, he added, and he had other patients waiting for him.

“My mind was in pure examination mode,” he said, adding that he wanted to get to a diagnosis as quickly as possible.

When asked by Mr Pereira why he did not have a chaperone during the examination, Wee made a similar point about being taken by surprise.

Wee added that the victim had remained calm and relaxed throughout the examination, and she did not inform him that she was feeling uncomfortable.

He stressed that she had removed her shorts and underwear herself, and he did not move or reposition her during the examination.

He described the rape allegation as being “a bombshell” and being shocked that he was in his current situation for performing a pelvic examination he believed  “was for the patient’s own good”.

“I felt terrible,” he said.

Wee was charged with rape and molest on Feb 24 last year. If convicted of rape, he faces 20 years in jail and a fine.

The maximum penalty for outrage of modesty is two years’ jail, fine, caning, or any combination of punishments. However, as Wee is above 50 years old, no caning will be imposed.

The trial continues on May 24, when prosecutors are expected to begin their cross-examination of him.

Source: CNA/lc