“It appears no change is coming for doctors. Their professional group — the Ontario Medical Association — favours exempting spouses, but their regulator, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, will not ask to take advantage of the new law, said Louise Verity, the associate registrar.
See also links below:
Rocco Gerace has been working hard to enforce a policy which - when ignored - will amount to “sexual abuse” and forbids docs and spouses to have sex with each other for a period of 1 to 5 years, Does Rocco Gerace have a valid point or is he just what he appears to be, an old man with a dirty mind, wanting to spy on colleagues and spouses in their bedrooms, a regular peeping Tom ?! Will “having sex” with your lawyer-spouse, stockbroker-spouse, accountant-spouse etc. be regulated next? Can this hilariously outrageous policy even stand in a free society? * Does anyone actually really care if a doc treats his/her own spouse? What if the doc is unmarried and treats any number of girl/boy-friends for minor ailments? Can he/she still have sex with them? How will Rocco keep track? Rocco’s going to be a very busy boy !
* According to CPSO “law”, a spouse who benefits from a physician’s medical expertise thru him/her performing a service for his/her spouse in the physician’s field of expertise = sexual abuse – resulting in a CPSO-imposed ban on sex between doc and spouse for a period of 1-5 yrs.
Try and explain that to other civilized countries. Has Canada’s medical College, with assistance from Rocco Boy, lost itsmind?!
Can anyone take this man seriously? Does he take himself seriously? Has Rocco Boy gone quite mad? The CPSO and Registrar Rocco Gerace have now achieved status as an international joke. If it wasn’t Rocco’s idea, who put pressure on this blockhead to pass this “law”? How is he going to enforce it? Rely on people spying? How is he going to enforce the “no sex” rule punishment for 1 – 5 years ? Hide under colleagues’ beds? For poor docs and their spouses it will be like living under Mafia rule, never knowing when they’ll encounter Rocco lurking in their homes and bedrooms.
As a patient it is irrelevant to me whether or not my doc treats his/her spouse for minor ailments. I just want a happy doc
See what Ontario’s dentists and their spouses think about this “law”:
Dr. Sanjeet Saluja was born in Quebec, but patients often ask him where he’s from originally.
By anyone’s standards, Dr. Sanjeet Singh Saluja sounds like an “educated Canadian”, which is exactly what he is of course. His voice is calm and pleasant. Yet this doctor complains he continues to encounter “racism”.
While I would not wish to be treated by this doctor, I don’t consider this to be for racist reasons. As stated earlier (see link below), I have an objection to the abundant facial hair which I consider unprofessional, unappetizing, unhygienic and not suitable for an ER doc. Dr. S.S.S.’s “race” is not the problem, nor is his religion, though unfortunately it is Dr. S.S.S.’s religion which dictates his appearance. When patients tell the doc to “go back where he came from” (quite different from being asked where one is from) , I think it’s best to consider the source and ignore it. I’m sure Dr. S.S.S. does not need validation by an uneducated, ignorant patient. We’ve all known such people in our lives. Difference is, when you’re not a visible minority you justhave to deal with it, without recourse to “racism” as Dr. S.S.S. must know.
In India, fair skin is so highly valued that marriage ads request partners with “fair skin”. while those with darker skin face discrimination on every level. This brand of racism amongst Indians continues even in Canada. Yet Dr. S.S.S. considers fellow Canadians racist when they ask where he is from or when it is assumed he might enjoy treating the Sikh community!
Dr. S.S.S. insists he is a Canadian and is absolutely right of course. However, as his religion is so very “visible” in that he looks “different” and as this is what patients see, it seems disingenuous when he acts shocked and insulted when people ask “where he is from”.
Why is it “racist” to ask where one is from? Would Dr. S.S.S. be a lesser person if he were a first-generation immigrant? Would being identified as being from another continent imply he was somehow “inferior”? Judging from his reaction to the question from patients, Dr. S.S.S. certainly seems to think so.
It always surprises me that the very people who so obviously came from “elsewhere” but are now “proud Canadians” (and don’t let anyone dare assume otherwise) will stand on University Avenue – Toronto’s main thoroughfare – on Saturday afternoons, in full “ethnic” regalia, with signs and placards, protesting a bad situation in the “old country”, somehow holding Canada responsible or implying it is the duty of Canadians to rectify the situation.
I notice Dr. S.S.S. is referring to his “girlfriend”. Perhaps he wishes to impress by having a cause and making a mark by getting free publicity. Work in the ER may get a bit humdrum now and then.
As for the recruiter assuming Dr. S.S.S. would be pleased to be asked to work with like-minded Sikh patients in another province, Dr. S.S.S. is insulted, why? Is treating predominantly “Western” patients a step up the ladder for this Sikh physician, making him socially superior to the Sikh community he does not want to treat? Not being able to read Dr. S.S.S.’s mind she could hardly be faulted for thinking Dr. S.S.S. would be a “nice fit” for her province’s Sikh community. How was she to know Dr. S.S.S. wishes to avoid treating mainly Sikh patients ? It’s no different when people are hired who speak certain languages so they may relate to others who also speak the language. No reason for Dr. S.S.S. to get his turban in a twist as he is not forced to treat a predominantly Sikh group of patients Yet, the suggestion shocks and insults the good doctor. .As bodies are much the same under the skin, and as patients of his own religion should not deter Dr. S.S.S. from wishing to treat them, one must assume Dr. S.S.S. discriminates against Sikh patients on the basis of colour,. It appears Dr. Sanjeet Singh Saluja himself is the racist, not the “Canadian” public.
Why should anyone be insulted when asked where one “is from”? It’s a great opportunity to share a little bit about one’s culture.
If being asked if one is from another continent is somehow insulting then I suggest the problem is with the self-esteem of the person being asked. As Dr. S.S.S. dresses differently from the average Canadian, he will continue to be asked about his country of origin. There is no reason to be “shocked” or “insulted” and his reaction to the question is passive-aggressive. True, he may be from St. Hubert, as are his parents, but it is obvious that somewhere along the line, his people immigrated from India. How is it insulting to be asked about that? Swedes, Germans, British, French, etc. who came to this country will happily tell you about their families coming to Canada several generations ago. They will often proudly offer this information without being asked. There must be “shame” attached to have forebears from India if the question causes Dr. S.S.S. to be shocked and insulted.
I believe Dr. S.S.S. can rest easy in the expectation that in future – with so many mixed marriages resulting in mixed racial children – the interest in one’s country of origin (racism) will wane and ultimately disappear as colour will no longer distinguish us.
Who decided it is taboo (racism) to notice someone is different (i.e. dress, language, colour) and thus to be curious about this person’s country of origin? As for visible minorities …….. being “Caucasian” in Toronto is definitely on top of the list of visible minorities. Just look around on subway, bus or streetcar. Hospitals are directed to be “culturally sensitive”. I know this does not extend to my country of origin but generally refers to people from ethnic minorities of colour. Why? Are they somehow “different”? Perhaps they should feel insulted by being singled out on the basis of race/colour - however well-intended - assuming they need extra assistance, not being smart enough to figure things out for themselves. I’ve never seen any public notices translated in public places in my native tongue, either in Toronto or Montreal, though translations for other minorities are well represented. Dr. Sanjeet Singh Saluja comes across as a “crybaby” with too much free time on his hands and Caucasians” are the scapegoats of choice.
Let’s acknowledge we are all different and not pretend we do not notice. Let’s enjoy our differences and have the freedom to prefer some differences over others without being called racists. Leave us the freedom to choose our friends, business partners, physicians and other people we choose to interact with. Let’s not complain but move on if some people simply “don’t want to play with us”. “C’est la vie !”
|Toll Free Phone||1-800-268-7096 ext 603|
|Primary Executive||Dr Rocco Gerace, Registrar|
direct email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ms Michelle DiEmanuele, President & CEO Credit Valley Hospital and Trillium Health Centre
|Office Phone||Main switchboard 905-813-2200|
|Toll Free Phone||1-877-292-4284|
|Primary Executive||Michelle DiEmanuele, President & Chief Executive Officer; Phone: 905-813-2200|
Had Trillium’s President and CEO, Ms diEmanuele informed patients as soon as there was cause for worry, patients would not have had to live in ignorance and would have had the option to get second opinions anywhere they chose, possibly allowing the outcome to be favourable instead of grim, even ending in death. Patients were deliberately denied that option, allowing cancer cells a lovely time to multiply for 6 months.
Both the Board and the CEO had a duty to inform the public as soon as it became evident there was cause for worry. To keep “errors” under wraps when cancer patients are involved is inexcusable and indefensible. Not only did Trillium not inform the public as soon as there was an indication of multiple “errors” made, Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, when informed on June 3, 2013, also kept silent, although it has a duty to “protect and serve the public interest”. No doubt “politics” played a role in the decision not to inform the public.
According to Trillium Spokeswoman Suzet Silva, the Trillium Board restricted the radiologist’s privileges in late May and notified the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the decision June 3, 2013. Trillium did not inform the Ministry of Health about the situation with the possibly misdiagnosed test results until late August, but said it removed the radiologist’s hospital privileges after a two month internal probe. It is unclear why at this point the College did not make these findings public, or insist that Trillium do so immediately. The cancer process does not wait for “politics” to be played out. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, always in hot pursuit of lone docs and non life-threatening infractions seems unable or unwilling to take on the major players in big cases where lives are at stake. It is possible that in view of the well-documented backlog of pending cases against docs, guilty of (in many cases) trivial infractions, a major case such as this, would be too much of a challenge.
CEO Michelle DiEmanuele received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Waterloo in 1987. She holds a Masters of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Toronto.
Michelle DiEmanuele holds No Master of Health Sciences degree or MBA and clearly relied on Dr. Dante Morra, Chief of Staff, to inform her on all medical problems. She had no experience in running a hospital of any size before she was dropped into the job of CEO of two hospitals:. Ms DiEmanuele could possibly administer a small family practice, but nothing larger than that.
3500 cases being checked for misdiagnosis is not an “isolated incident”. Telling patients not to be “too paranoid” shows a profound lack of understanding of the cancer process. Toronto litigation lawyers look forward to retire on these cases. Medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte has been taking calls from patients.
Trillium’s Board, President and CEO Ms Michelle DiEmanuele and CPSO Registrar Dr. Rocco Gerace should resign on grounds of breach of duty, incompetence and negligence. All were complicit in what turned out to be a “cover-up”. All allowed “politics” to take priority over patients’ health.
Any patient in Ontario who receives a serious diagnosis based on a radiology report would be wise to insist on a second opinion as standard procedure from now on.
Once again the rest of the developed world is shaking its head at Canada’s failure with non-competitive Government-controlled medicine. .
from CPSO’s website:
Unfortunately for cancer patients, victims of this scandal, CPSO’s Mandate and Strategic Priorities such as: ”Public Trust, Integrity, Transparency of Process, a Duty to serve and protect the Public Interest, Acting in the Interest of Patients and Communities, Accountability to the Public and the Profession, Accepting Responsibility, Leadership” were ignored by CPSO Registrar Dr. Rocco Gerace. Dr. Gerace has a publicized interest in Hospice Palliative Care and is familiar with the cancer process and the importance of early diagnosis and treatment. He knew about the situation. Why did he not act?
On June 1 the British Columbia government extended to 15 years from seven the time in which British Columbians could litigate against B.C. physicians. As a result, the College of Physicans and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) extended to 16 years the time period that B.C. physicians are required to retain patient charts and records. In the case of minors, the 16-year time period for retention of charts and records does not start until the minor reaches the age of majority.
Dr. John O’Brien-Bell
A doctor retiring at 65 with a requirement to hold the records for 16 years could be 81 when the burden is lifted. Should a patient have been a newborn seen close to the doctors’ retirement date, the 16 years does not start until the infant is 18, so the doctor could be 100 years old and still liable!
In 2004 I retired from Sandell Medical after 38 years of practice. I stored my 52 boxes of medical records for the next seven years with Chartsmart. I could have stored them in a shed at the bottom of the garden, but Chartsmart dealt with all patient, legal and other requests for information, and requests were common in the first two years. From 2009 onward, with more and more of the charts beyond seven years since the patient was last seen, the number of charts was reduced by shredding. By 2012 all but the charts of minors had been shredded and those will be dealt with in due course.
For the first four years I paid Chartsmart $2,000 per annum and the following two years $1,400 per annum. Since then it has reduced steadily so that in 2013 it will be $100. It will increase again when the children’s charts are shredded. In total, my chart storage and shredding has cost some $14,000. I am fortunate in that I continued working past the age when most have retired, so the $14,000 was paid out of earned and not retirement income.
Contrast those numbers with the estimated costs of a 65-year-old retiree over 16 years—but based on my 2004 to 2013 costs:
Estimated retirement record-retention costs
Years one to nine at $2,000 annually = $18,000
Years 10 to 13 at $1,400 annually = $5,600
Years 14 to 16 at $700 annually = $2,100
This is no small burden to place on the shoulders of retiring doctors.
The BCMA didn’t mobilize the profession to pressure the government to accept the costs of this regulatory change being imposed on physicians. The BCMA’s only message to its members was that if a doctor has a problem, he or she should contact the CPSBC.
This clearly should be a BCMA issue for it is a very important one for the increasingly large body of retired physicians. The least those doctors could have expected was a full briefing on the implications and impact of the Limitation Act (the legislation that changed the time limits for filing civil lawsuits)—and that did not occur.
The Limitation Act was presented at a time that gave the BCMA the best possible opportunity to challenge the change: namely in the run-up to a provincial election, where it was generally expected the government would lose and lose badly. The Limitation Act was an ideal issue with which to mobilize B.C. doctors to turn it into an election issue. Every patient entering a doctor’s office should have left that doctor’s office understanding why physicians feel so strongly about the act. The BCMA should have mounted an aggressive PR campaign calling on the government to cover the financial implications associated with the Limitation Act. The media might have bought into a campaign stressing the unfairness of the act’s determination that retired doctors fund the implications of the Limitation Act and that they be required do so well into their 80s, and longer in respect of minors—perhaps even until the doctor is a centenarian.
John O’Brien-Bell is a Surrey, B.C., physician and has served as president of both the Canadian Medical Association and the BCMA.
I’ve never heard something so ridiculous in my life! Why can’t retiring docs drop off their records at their College who can then pay for, storage and dispose of the records as they see fit. As a patient I’d feel far safer knowing that there is a central location to contact if I should ever need access to “old” files. To the doc it would be fair as he/she should not be expected to bear the responsibility and financial burden for keeping old records well into retirement. What happens if the doc can no longer afford the storage fees or passes away? Does the record storage facility hand over the records to the doc’s College or does it destroy the records? It seems to me the Colleges are only in it for the “good times” and the docs have no one willing to stand up for them and protect their interests,. Docs seem to be pushovers when it comes to finances.
In the current age of instant communication such as Twitter, why should Dr. Trevor Jain not voice his displeasure and inform the world of a potential dangerous situation. The displeasure of the hospital’s medical director, Dr. Rosemary Henderson, is understandable. She now has to find a solution fast as “the world is watching”. This means “work”. If an adverse event were to happen because of understaffing, she can’t plead ignorance as the “unsafe” situation is public knowledge. I’m sure we’ll see more of this kind of “tweeting” as younger docs enter the profession, no longer willing to “cover up”.
Ms Jill Hefley appears to have been permanently replaced by Prithi Yelaja as Spokeswoman for the CPSO.
The difference between a CPSO Associate Director of Communications (Jill Hefley) and a CPSO Communications Specialist (Prithi Yelaja) is not clear. New job titles are often created in order to blur the lines of company hierarchy. Those in the know aren’t fooled of course. We may reasonably assume that Ms Hefley’s public lack of discretion, lack of judgement and common sense caused her to be replaced in favour of a new employee with a more impressive CV - albeit a new employee with an indelible stain on her reputation. Ms Yelaja was proven to be profoundly dishonest and lacking integrity when she committed plagiarism while working as a reporter for the Toronto Star .( see links below ).
Ms Prithi Yelaja should fit right in at 80 College St.
Ms Hefley can now devote her time to personal pursuits such as ” How to surf Facebook at work without anyone knowing and look like you’re slaving away on a spreadsheet”.
Cutting and pasting, as well as bare-faced lying, are to journalism what doping is to Olympic sports. They compromise the integrity of a vocation where truth, original research and earnest reportage are the only stock-in-trade“
What Prithi said when she was caught and confronted with irrefutable facts::
Dr. Sanjeet Singh Saluja, an emergency room physician at the McGill University Health Centre poses for a photograph in Montreal, Wednesday, August 21, 2013.
(Graham Hughes/The Canadian Press)
In an ER setting certain religious symbols could be a problem. Could I - a patient – who finds the abundant neck and facial hair on this fierce-looking physician unprofessional, unappetizing and unhygienic - request to be treated by another doc without danger of being called racist?
Patients will look for a physician they can “identify” with. That’s not “racism”
CPSO Spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke
Contact Ms Clarke with your comments at: 416-967-2600 ext. 378, or: email@example.com