A Hampstead doctor who prescribed weight-loss drugs to her boyfriend without telling him she was a doctor has been suspended for a further six months. Dr Josevania Martins, who runs a private gynaecology and fertility clinic in Hampstead, was first handed a nine-month suspension in October 2025.
Background of the case
Dr Martins prescribed Ozempic and Wegovy to the man she was dating, identified only as “Mr B”, in breach of General Medical Council (GMC) guidelines. At the time, she defended her actions as “compassionate” and in the man’s best interests, calling his need to lose weight a “medical emergency”. However, she hid the fact that she was a doctor from him, including by refusing to let him visit her home.
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found she had invented the name of a clinic to maintain her story, while using her professional status to source the diabetic treatment drugs. When Mr B realised she was using a fake name on dating apps, he reported her to the GMC. The tribunal then suspended the doctor to protect the public and give her time to reflect.
Review and further suspension
As the ban was due to expire in July, Dr Martins had hoped to return to practice. But following a review, she was suspended for another six months after a panel was not satisfied that the behaviour would not recur. During her October misconduct hearing, the tribunal found she had hurt her case by not apologising for her dishonesty and “showed no insight” into the consequences of her actions on the medical profession.
Though she eventually acknowledged that her emotional involvement with Mr B risked blurring personal and professional boundaries, Dr Martins argued there was no doctor/patient relationship between them. She also said there was no evidence she meant to mislead anyone and denied that any of her actions amounted to serious misconduct.
Panel’s ruling
During the July 2026 review, a panel judged that Dr Martins had expressed “sincere remorse” and accepted that her actions were unethical, crossed clinical and personal boundaries, and had a wider impact on her profession. But the tribunal ruled her argument in favour of lifting the ban was too “legalistic and theoretical” and lacked a “practical demonstration of her learning”.
“[Dr Martins] has reflected on the practical issues of why the guidance says she should not have done what she did but has not sufficiently articulated why she did what she did and why she would not do such actions again,” the panel ruled. This meant there was still a risk “in terms of public confidence and the need to uphold professional standards”. Another review will be held shortly before the six-month suspension expires in January 2027.
