But the man, who has interim name suppression, denied that was the case and said his professional misconduct involved momentary lapses in judgement.
Yesterday, the tribunal refused his application for final name suppression, but his identity will remain under wraps until a full written decision has been delivered.
After the tribunal announced the penalty, victims and whanau were visibly upset.
They were relieved the man would be named eventually and hoped once his identity was revealed any other patients who had similar experiences would come forward.
On Tuesday, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal found the man had committed five instances of professional misconduct.
One patient attempted suicide just hours after meeting the medical professional, while another was labelled "melodramatic".
Yesterday, the tribunal censured the man, fined him $3000 and ordered him to pay 40% of the costs of the investigation.
Kirsten Corbett, on behalf of the director of proceedings, argued the practitioner repeatedly failed to conduct himself with the level of professionalism and empathy expected.
She highlighted the patients were already vulnerable and distressed during their appointments with him.
"[The professional] was passive and insensitive, which exacerbated the consumers’ distress," Ms Corbett said.
The tribunal heard the man had received a complaint in 2016 and apologised for his conduct, but continued to behave in a similar way.
Ms Corbett argued his demeanour was unlikely to be a one-off, and highlighted there were complaints from three people over five years.
"This was not mere lapses of judgement but reflected his personal beliefs ... [and was] fuelled by his own moral outrage," Ms Corbett said.
"[He] still appears to lack empathy or recognition of the harm caused."
Counsel Adam Holloway argued his client was empathetic.
"It can’t be inferred ... that there was nothing positive in those interactions," the lawyer said.
"If there was a wider issue with a practitioner who genuinely did not care about his patients ... we would not see the kind of support that [this man] has."
The health practitioner gave evidence on Tuesday he accepted his wrongdoings "without reservation" and was not trying to make excuses.
"The words spoken were not dishonest or deliberately demeaning," Mr Holloway said.
"He wanted to provide good care, but accepts that he went about it in the wrong way."
He argued there was no pattern of concerning behaviour in his many years of service, and he had been nominated by his colleagues for an award.
The tribunal heard he was still practising, as well as supervising less experienced practitioners.
An application for final name suppression was advanced on the basis it might prove "impossible" for the man to continue practising if his name was published.
"It shouldn’t be the case that one black mark prevents a practitioner from returning to practice," Mr Holloway said.
The health practitioner had pointed to his experience after a recording of him during an appointment was posted to social media by the mother of a patient.
He said that publication had "immediate ramifications" and people were cancelling appointments with him.
Jamie O’Sullivan, lead counsel for the director of proceedings, highlighted to the tribunal the only evidence they had about the consequences of the man’s name being published was from the man himself.
"It’s not entirely clear that it would be impossible [for him to continue practising]. It would be awkward at times ... it might be difficult," Ms O’Sullivan said.
"The reputation that we each hold as professionals is the one that we earn."
She noted the victims and their families were opposed to name suppression and it was possible other unknown complainants might come forward after publication.
"For patients to complain about [health practitioners] ... it’s not an easy thing to do. We have to recognise that there is often that power imbalance at play," she said.
According to the Medical Council of New Zealand, the health practitioner was still practising with no restrictions on him.
Tribunal chairwoman Theo Baker thanked everyone involved in the process.
"These matters concern real people’s experiences ... the people involved are always in our minds," she said.
The facts
Patient A
• He described the patient in clinical notes as "unpleasant" and made his dislike for the patient well-known.
Patient B
• During a consultation told her he did not like those who did not make eye contact with him and he would not treat her until she did.
• Told her to stop crying.
• In clinical notes referred to her crying as "melodramatic tears".
Patient C
• During an appointment said he could not help him and that it was "his job" to get better.
• Ignored the patient’s suicidal ideation, blaming his client’s drug use for the symptoms.
