discipline summaries
Although the behaviours involved in this case fall
short of those requiring a mandatory revocation of Dr.
Rakem’s certificate of registration, there are a number
of aggravating factors here that warrant a severe penalty.
There was a gross breach of trust: Dr. Rakem invited
his patient to observe surgery, knowing that she was
interested in a career in medicine. Due to the age of the
patient, 18 at the time of the misconduct, the power
imbalance that exists between physician and patient was
considerably increased. Dr. Rakem set up the office visit
after the surgery in the early evening. This seemed to
represent opportunism in his conduct. This was not just
a momentary impulsive lapse, but rather Dr. Rakem invited the patient back to observe more surgery after the
termination of their encounter. Dr. Rakem’s actions left
the patient in a compromised and vulnerable position.
It is fortunate that she had sufficient internal strength to
terminate the encounter.
Several mitigating factors were also considered by the
Committee. Dr. Rakem admitted to his wrongdoing at
an early point, thus showing that he accepted responsibility for his misconduct. He saved the College the cost
and time of a contested hearing and he avoided subjecting the complainant to the stress of having to testify.
Dr. Rakem was remorseful from the outset. He had no
prior disciplinary history with the College.
Having considered all of these factors, the Committee was satisfied that the jointly proposed penalty in
this case was appropriate. The six-month suspension
was viewed as at the high end of the range of suspensions that were imposed in the previous cases that were
presented to the Committee, but appropriate given the
aggravating factors in this case. The lengthy suspension, along with the reprimand, serves to denounce Dr.
Rakem’s conduct, thus expressing t H