TRAnsparency
Q&A
Why has the College capitulated to the
media in allowing reporters to dictate how
medical regulation will work?
The College does recognize that we have indeed been
the focus of intense media scrutiny over the last year.
That does not mean, however, that it has dictated our
path. While the media may take credit, our plans to
move toward greater transparency were laid several years
ago. The CPSO Council has considered transparency
issues, including the pros and cons of making particular categories of information available to the public, at
every Council meeting since September 2012.
The bottom line is that change is inevitable. We live
in a new era of expectations and as a result, more organizations – especially those with a mandate to protect
the public interest – have been building greater transparency into their processes.
If you really want to address the concerns raised
regarding the College’s lack of transparency and
accountability, you must make the amendment
retroactive and allow cautions from previous
years to be posted.
As stated in the earlier response, the College must
abide by the rules that were in place at the time that
decisions were made. The College recognizes that physicians may have indeed chosen to appeal the ICRC
decision if they had known such decisions would be
posted. Changing the rules after the fact would not be
fair to physicians.
I received a caution-in-person several years
ago. I debated appealing the decision but
my lawyer instructed me to let it go. I agreed
only because the matter was going to be kept
confidential. Had I known this now might be
dredged up, I would have most vigorously
contested the decision.
This caution will not be posted under the current proposal. The College must continue to abide by the rules
that were in place when you made your decision not to
appeal ICRC’s decision.
The proposal contemplates making public those
SCERPs and cautions-in-person outcomes that result
The College should not post criminal charges.
I understand the need to post convictions, but
posting criminal charges flies in the face of the
presumption of innocence.
The presumption of innocence does not imply that
charges must be secret. In fact, they are not. Every day
the news includes items about people who have been
arrested and charged with crimes but who have not yet
had their day in court.
If the proposal is approved, the information will
clearly differentiate between charges and convictions,
and that such information will be updated or removed,
as appropriate, if there is a finding.
from complaints received by the College on or
after January 1, 2015. This will allow some notice
to be provided for both the public and the profession that a public caution-in person is possible.
We appreciate hearing from all interested parties and all feedback will be carefully considered. Council will decide
whether to approve the draft by-laws at its meeting in May.
Issue 1, 2015 Dialogue
Issue1_15.indd 29
29
2015-03-19 11:18 AM