The Awareness Center is the Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA)

If you find this site helpful, please consider becoming a financial sponsor

Case of Stuart Cooperman, MD - Pediatrican

Merrick, New York

Dr. Stuart Cooperman had his medical license revoked by the New York State Health Department , after an investigation revealed that he had sexually molested six female patients.  He had a pediatric practice in Merrick, New York, for 35 years.

Networking and Self-Help Groups for the Awareness Center This link will bring you to a list of different mailing lists offered by The Awareness Center. We offers several different email groups,which include our general mailing list, press-releases, Jewish survivors of childhood sexual abuse, Jewish Survivors of Clergy Abuse (by Rabbis and Cantors), Parents of children who were molested, Family members of sex offenders, etc.

Table of Contents:  

1. The Rabbi Defends the Pediatrician (12/31/2001)

by Alexiou, Alice Sparberg

Lilith Magazine - December 31, 2001  V.26; N.4 5, Page: 5

He was perfect: self-assured, with sterling credentials, and generations of adoring mothers entrusted their children to him. He was active in his community, and in his Reform synagogue. So when the New York State Health Department last December revoked the license of Dr. Stuart Copperman, 66, after an investigation revealed that he had sexually molested six female patients, the affluent Long Island community where he had practiced pediatrics for 35 years went into convulsions, followed by denial.

Over and over again, people in Merrick, New York, where Dr. Copperman had his in-house office, said that they couldn't believe that the good doctor, whom many described as "like a god," had committed the hideous acts of which he was accused. One woman, who said she had known the doctor and his family for years, speculated that the young women who testified were all pathological liars. Six former patients, now adults, had testified to a state panel in the summer of 2000 that Dr. Copperman had molested them when they were teenagers. Their allegations of the abuse were strikingly similar, and graphic: the doctor, after telling their mothers that he wanted to talk to their daughters in private, would then perform a "vaginal cleaning" with his bare fingers. Moreover, after the story hit the media, dozens of additional women came forward with testimony, both to the media and to the State Health Department. Debra Geller Lieberman, 39, said that the doctor had molested her three times, when she was 8, 9, and 10.

Lieberman's father, also a doctor, was a colleague of Dr. Copperman. But, said Lieberman, when she later complained to her mother, the response she got was "a nice Jewish doctor from Long Island just doesn't do things like that."

Dr. Copperman has not to date been accused of a crime, although the Nassau County District Attorney continues to investigate the case. Revocation of his medical license was done under the state's administrative law, which states that he can seek to reclaim it after three years.

Shortly after the story broke in Long Island Newsday last December, Rabbi Ronald Brown, rabbi of Dr. Copperman's synagogue, Temple Beth Am of Merrick, where the doctor was a generous donor, wrote a letter to the local paper stating that the pediatrician "was a caring person and a dedicated physician," that he had known the doctor for years, that the doctor had taken care of the rabbi's own children, and that Dr. Copperman was "a person to whom I can entrust the care of those I love."

And while this public support of Dr. Copperman made many congregants angry, the rabbi did not retract his letter. One woman who did not want to be identified, said that "the rabbi is still the rabbi, and you have to forgive him. Rabbi Brown didn't know all the facts."

Reporting this story for The New York Times this past September reminded me how risky it is for a woman to tell the truth, especially when she is going up against powerful men like the rabbi and the pediatrician. Nearly everybody I interviewed for the story later expressed regret for having commented on the case. A woman from the congregation who had agreed to be quoted called a few days later, her voice shaking with anger, as she accused me of "trying to embarrass our temple." Then another woman whom I had interviewed, whose daughter had been the first victim to come forward, screamed at me over the telephone after the Times article ran for supposedly "whitewashing" the doctor. Never again, she told me, would she speak to a reporter. I told her that however much she hated the way I had told the story, she had done the world a service by talking to me. How else would the victims' voices have been heard?

(Top)

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Last Updated:  05/17/2003

--Margaret Mead

(Top)