Doctor claimed telepathic diagnosis says report

- 1 February 1991

(from the New Zealand Herald 1/5/90)

An Auckland doctor who is said to have claimed he could communicate subconsciously with a 16-month-old patient and predict diseases and the age at which the child would die has been found guilty of professional misconduct by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee.

A report of the three-day hearing, published in this month’s issue of the New Zealand Medical Journal said the child, who had been taken to the doctor because of suspected food allergies, was not examined.

Instead the doctor connected an electrode to the mother’s left middle toe while she held the child on her lap.

That electrode, plus another held by the mother in her hand .

were meant to yield a diagnosis of the child’s condition through a Vega machine—a tool used in alternative medicine.

The report said that after the testing was concluded, the doctor continued his investigation by directing questions form his own subconscious to that of the child as the child ran around the surgery.

The answers were interpreted by responses of the Vega machine, which revealed allergies and also inherited chronic “miasms” from ancestors with venereal or mental diseases.

The doctor predicted death for the child at the age of 60 from carcinoma unless the “mniasms” were removed by the homeopathic treatment he prescribed, said the report.

However, the lactose base of the homeopathic medicine given to the baby resulted in a violent gastrointestinal disturbance which lasted for several days.

After a hearing last year of evidence in this and two other cases, the committee found Dr Dennis Steeper, of Mt Eden, guilty of professional misconduct and commented that his behaviour bordered on disgraceful conduct.

He was fined $900 costs and expenses of $25,000. Several conditions were imposed on his practising as a doctor during the next three years.

In his submission to the committee, Dr Steeper said he did not dispute the evidence in the cases and he acknowledged the foolishness of his predictions—a practice he had now ceased.

In the other cases, evidence was heard of Dr Steeper predicting the possible death in a road accident at the age of 17 of a child then aged 12 months, after his mother took him to the surgery because of a suspected link between food allergies and asthma.

The committee found that Dr Steeper’s statements to the mothers were misleading and hurtful and caused them distress and unnecessary anxiety.

The committee stressed that unorthodox or alternative methods were not on trial.

But, through Dr Steeper’s standing as a registered medical practitioner he had been able to give credence or status to the use of his machine and the predictions and diagnoses he made.

The committee said it had no doubt that in each of the cases the behaviour of Dr Steeper fell substantially below the standard required of a medical practitioner.

The conditions imposed on his continued operation as a doctor were that his practice be supervised and reported on at quarterly intervals over the next three years; that he discontinue his “extrapolations” and communications of these to patients; and that he should make patients fully aware of his alternative medical practices, gaining written consent in advance.

Last night Dr Steeper said he considered the committee’s decision unfair.

But he would not be appealing against the committee’s decision because to do so he would have to go to the Medical Council—a body he felt would be lees sympathetic to his methods.