His workplaces included Rotorua Hospital and a healthcare facility which is subject to suppression orders. <\/p>\n
The finding says he took the sedative without independent oversight and, even when subject to monitoring by the Medical Council\u2019s Health Committee, did not disclose his use to the committee.<\/p>\n
He accepted the conduct amounted to professional misconduct.<\/p>\n
He told the tribunal that he used Midazolam \u201con and off\u201d over about three decades.<\/p>\n
Neff\u2019s account was that he used alcohol and Midazolam to self-treat post-traumatic stress disorder and his conduct was connected to long-standing stress, anxiety, fear and insomnia.<\/p>\n
He reported that, after the matter came to light, he spoke to surgeons, anaesthetic technicians and the general manager of a healthcare facility he worked at about his alcohol and benzodiazepine usage.<\/p>\n
However, he had not disclosed his Midazolam use to the Health Committee during periods when it was monitoring his fitness to practise.<\/p>\n
After his use of Midazolam came to light in March 2024, he voluntarily withdrew from practice. He was approved to return to work by the Health Committee, subject to a plan being put in place, but decided to take an extended break. <\/p>\n
He returned in September 2025, but has since resigned his Fellowship of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, has not returned to anaesthetic practice, working instead in functional medicine.<\/p>\n
This has been subject to conditions approved by the Health Committee, which prohibited him from prescribing or accessing medicines or drugs of potential abuse.<\/p>\n
He told the tribunal he was \u201cburned as an anaesthetist\u201d, and that he had let down the close-knit anaesthetic team of which he had been part of.<\/p>\n
He said that while he loved his job and believed he was a very good anaesthetist, \u201cthere\u2019s no way I can go back to that profession\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u2018Sustained and deliberate\u2019 conduct <\/p>\n
The tribunal found that his diversion \u2013 taking Midazolam from his workplaces \u2013 constituted malpractice.<\/p>\n
The tribunal found Neff\u2019s self-medication constituted malpractice given it was sustained and deliberate \u201dover many years\u201d.<\/p>\n
The most serious offending, in the tribunal\u2019s view, was Neff\u2019s lack of disclosure about his Midazolam use.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe opportunity for a practitioner to disclose to a professional body difficulties of the kind here arising, and thereby to access a supported, peer-based pathway, is vital,\u201d the tribunal\u2019s decision said.<\/p>\n
The tribunal found all three aspects of the offending brought discredit to the profession.<\/p>\n
In considering the appropriate penalty, aggravating factors included that it occurred intermittently over about 30 years, rather than a single lapse of judgment.<\/p>\n
There was also a \u201cfundamental breach of trust involved\u201d and an inherent risk of harm from any doctor self-medicating with sedatives without independent oversight.<\/p>\n
The tribunal\u2019s decision also noted Neff\u2019s repeated failure to disclose his use during periods of active Health Committee monitoring.<\/p>\n
Mitigating factors were that once his use came to light, Neff was open about it and admitted the charge early, meaning they didn\u2019t have to call liability evidence.<\/p>\n
There was no evidence of falsified records, forged prescriptions, or similar dishonest steps. He voluntarily stood down from practice and subsequently removed himself from anaesthesia to an environment with materially less exposure to Midazolam.<\/p>\n
Neff had engaged in treatment, appeared currently sober, and had successfully returned to practise functional medicine. <\/p>\n
In assessing future risk, the tribunal noted Neff\u2019s evidence about the \u201cshame and guilt\u201d and \u201ccompartmentalisation\u201d in his own mind.<\/p>\n
He said that Midazolam \u201cwas not a recreational drug\u201d but \u201ca means to switch off my brain, to switch off the ongoing stress\u201d. <\/p>\n
Dr Stephan Neff. <\/p>\n
He accepted, however, that Midazolam would have been \u201ca very inappropriate drug to use for that setting\u201d.<\/p>\n
He said that he could not honestly say \u201cthis will never happen again\u201d and acknowledged he had \u201ca track record of having failed\u201d.<\/p>\n
He also said he had \u201cgrown so much\u201d and \u201claid such a good foundation\u201d that recurrence was, in his assessment, \u201cincredibly unlikely\u201d. <\/p>\n
The tribunal said it was significant that Neff accepted the need for ongoing objective monitoring, and told them he had \u201cone more chance to show that I am a good man and a good doctor\u201d and that he would \u201cdo whatever it takes\u201d to prove that he was.<\/p>\n
Neff had taken \u201cmeaningful steps\u201d to change the way he managed stress, anxiety, and addiction risk, including tools such as exercise, breath work and nutrition.<\/p>\n
He spoke highly of the Health Committee\u2019s support and said he was \u201cashamed\u201d he went behind their back.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe shame and guilt, there are no two ways around that. I\u2019m grateful that I have the opportunity to work with them and get monitored in the future during my working life here, I am very happy with that.\u201d <\/p>\n
The tribunal accepted both parties\u2019 submissions that censure and conditions were appropriate, rather than suspension or cancellation of registration.<\/p>\n
Neff had removed himself from anaesthetic practice and was subject to an \u201cexisting, effective regime of monitoring and restriction administered by the Health Committee\u201d.<\/p>\n
He was censured, and the tribunal also imposed conditions on his practice.<\/p>\n
He would have to disclose the tribunal\u2019s findings to current and future employers, partners, shareholders in a company conducting medical practise and other professional colleagues in his workplace.<\/p>\n
For the next two years, his employment would be subject to Medical Council approval, and he is unable to be a sole charge medical practitioner where he has unsupervised access to any controlled drug or prescription medication of potential abuse.<\/p>\n
He will be under Health Committee supervision for the next three years, and was ordered to contribute 15% of the combined Professional Conduct Committee and tribunal costs, estimated at $10,726.89.<\/p>\n
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.<\/p>\n