Ontario docs are leaving – patients have trouble finding good doctors

{March 12, 2012}   No “spousal exemption” rule turns Docs into Sexual Abusers and Pedophiles

No “spousal exemption” in College approach to sexual abuse

The College is in favour of the continued application of a zero tolerance approach to sexual abuse and does not endorse a “spousal exemption” for physicians.
That was the College’s response when we were asked to participate in a consultation on the issue of whether an alternative to the sexual abuse mandatory revocation provisions should exist with respect to the treatment of a spouse by a regulated health professional.And at its meeting, Council agreed that, going forward, there is no need to change our current approach. This decision was made following discussion of a number of the problematic legal situations that would be created by an exemption.
Under the current legislation, sexual abuse occurs regardless of whether the sexual relationship preceded the physician-patient relationship. As long as the sexual and professional relationships overlapped, sexual abuse is established. As a result, a health-care professional who provides ongoing care to their spouse may be found to have committed sexual abuse if a physician-patient relationship has resulted from the care provided.
In its response to a consultation held by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC), the College stated that its Discipline Committee has demonstrated the ability to discern whether a physician-patient relationship exists within spousal relationships. Such a determination is within the Committee’s scope and expertise.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has considered the intent and effect of the mandatory revocation provision on three separate occasions. In each instance, the Court upheld the regulatory body’s decision to revoke. The Court has confirmed that incidental medical care provided to a spouse does not make the spouse a patient of the professional.
Should government decide to allow the exemption to other professions, the College has requested that it not apply to physicians.
With this ill-judged ruling the College has turned the “Healer” into an “Abuser”.
The College is desperate to stay in business at any cost, usually at the expense of common sense. It continues to create work to remain in business, in this case by creating cases for sexual abuse where none exists.
If the doc  treats his or her spouse, the doc has become a “Sexual Abuser”.  Now  –  unless the doc is entirely without feeling, it’s pretty well impossible to sit idly by when it’s completely within his or her power and expertise to “treat” a family member. And why not!  Most docs – unless they are complete dorks  – are guilty of Sexual Abuse according to College Rule though many might not realize it (yet).
The spouse of the Sexual Abuser has no say in the matter. He or she may deny sexual abuse of any kind until the cows come home, the College insists otherwise.  The aim is total control of physicians and it won’t do to have the physician’s spouse disagree with the College when it suits the College to decide the spouse was sexually abused, even if he/she might beg to differ.  Does the spouse –  member of the Public  –  have the right to allow him/herself to be treated by a physician spouse? Now there’s an interesting point!  What  –  exactly  –   is the position of docs’ children and spouses?  If the College will not allow the spouse a voice  ( as he/she denies being sexually abused ) then he/she has no position at all. Any member of the Public has a voice.  According to College rule, the “treated” spouse does not and therefore is a “nonentity”.   Does the College have any plausible explanation for this idiotic ruling which makes absolutely no sense at all? No wonder the College does not want cases to go to a true Court, they would never get away with this non-legal nonsense. It’s easy to see that in order to get a swift ruling against the doc,  it suits the College to turn the treated spouse into a non-entity, but if he/she is a non-entity,  how could he/she have been treated? 
In true Law, “Intent” is  of importance.  It’s doubtful the intent to treat a spouse was to harm him or her, but rather to help.  But of course College law is not true Law.
So here we have a perfect example of the profoundly idiotic way the bozo’s at the College apply what limited brainpower they possess to create rules to  “protect the Public”   –  where the spouse turns from being “the Public” to “nonentity” by virtue of being the doc’s spouse and where providing first-aid medical treatment becomes a crime,  but killing a normal healthy baby in the womb is perfectly acceptable.   And so continues the bumbling and stumbling of the legally uneducated medical members of the College who do not know a rat’s a*s about Ontario Law but who act as Jury in the Discipline Committees and cannot be challenged by Defense Counsel for any conflict of Interest or Prejudice.   
It is anybody’s guess how the “Sexual Abuser” and the “Sexually Abused” will explain things to the kids. It’s obvious the College could care less as they would certainly have had to consider the effects of the ruling on the family, especially any children. The damage such an accusation of a parent might do to a child doesn”t matter to the College   –    just the College doing what it does best ………  protecting the Public.  But wait!!!!!!  aren’t the kiddies “the Public” too, just like the non-physician spouse? 
What if the doc treats a son or daughter, does this make him/her a pedophile ?????
–    If a doc treats his/her spouse which would make him/her a sexual abuser, would treating a young son or  daughter make him/her a pedophile and possibly guilty of incest? 
–    If it does not turn him/her into a pedophile, docs should know how this is different from treating a spouse.
–    If a male doctor treats a daughter who is past her teenage years, would this be sexual abuse or even incest?
–    What if the male doc treats an older son or a female doc an older daughter? Will he/she be guilty of sexual abuse in the context of a homosexual or lesbian relationship?
If I were a doc I would at least want answers and an explanation.  As a member of the Public and a patient, all I can conclude is that those making the rules at the CPSO are seriously sexually challenged and in desperate  need of hormone treatment and some counseling for their hangups.    
As treating one’s spouse has nothing to do with protecting the Public, it would be accurate to conclude that the College actively seeks to do harm to physicians and their families.      
Dentists at least have charismatic, good-looking Registrar Irwin Fefergrad  – a very smart lawyer  –   to speak for them. Docs unfortunately are stuck with homely Rocco-the-Registrar Vincente Gerace – a Canadian-Italian ER doc who has no qualifications in administration or law  though he might perhaps watch “Judge Judy” now and then.  If only Rocco had a fraction of the looks, talent and intellect of Mr. Fefergrad !   
Rocco and his Council blunder from one bad decision to another. Perhaps their fairly advanced ages cause them to obsess about sex. What is very clear is that decisions, policies and rulings made by the College are consistently and deliberately designed to go against physicians. A look at how dentists solve the issue shows a healthy dose of common sense, intellect and a preparedness to stand up for their members, all sorely lacking at the CPSO. 
Following is the Dentists solution to Spousal Treatment 
HPRAC Consultation on Spousal Treatment
The College is taking a very robust role in this public consultation by the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council. College President Dr. Peter Trainor, accompanied by College Registrar Irwin Fefergrad, made a forceful presentation to HPRAC on January 10 during the open hearings at the Delta Chelsea Hotel in downtown Toronto. The College is also making a written submission later this month.
The (Dental) College’s position is that it is wrong and beyond common sense to equate, without exception, the treatment of a spouse by any health care practitioners as equivalent to a situation of sexual abuse. The College is urging HPRAC to recommend to the Minister that the automatic five-year revocation be lifted.
CPSO’s position is:  
Should government decide to allow the exemption to other professions, the College has requested that it not apply to physicians.
Docs are not paranoid when they perceive correctly that Rocco and his posse will do anything to gain total control over them and their families, no matter how far-fetched and ridiculous.  Lacking the plain common sense and logic of colleagues at the Dental College,  perhaps it’s a cultural thing .
Rocco continues to accept ridiculous injustice for his colleagues, so long as he can keep his job and perks whatever the cost to his fellow physicians.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

et cetera
%d bloggers like this: