discipline summaries
DR. PETER JOHN BROWN
Practice Location: London
Practice Area: Family Medicine
Hearing Information: a. Admission – Disgraceful,
Dishonourable, or Unprofessional Conduct
b. Contested Hearing (4 days) – Sexual Abuse
The Discipline Committee found that Dr. Brown
committed acts of professional misconduct, in that
he has engaged in the sexual abuse of a patient and
he has engaged in conduct or an act or omission
relevant to the practice of medicine that, having
regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be
regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional.
Dr. Brown had admitted to the allegation of disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
He had denied the allegation of sexual abuse.
In September 2010, Ms A, a university student,
began counselling to deal with ongoing stressors in
her life, which caused significant anxiety, with Dr.
Brown, a family physician who provided psychotherapy at the Student Health Services. Initially, Ms
A had a difficult time opening up to Dr. Brown, but
by December 2010, she was willing to talk and share
more. By the spring of 2011, Ms A had developed
significant trust in Dr. Brown and began experiencing different feelings, in that she had become attracted to him and cared what he thought about her. She
had some insight into her feelings for him as she had
some knowledge of transference and was aware that
transference can arise in counselling situations. Dr.
Brown recommended yoga to her as part of therapy
but went on to disclose his personal experience
and details about where he went. The nature of the
professional relationship changed on a day in September 2011, when after a yoga session they attended
together, Dr. Brown sat in her car and professed that
he had feelings for her. The Committee found that
Dr. Brown’s declaration was an expression of romantic feelings and sexual interest towards Ms A and as
such, found that Dr. Brown engaged in sexual abuse
of his patient by making remarks of a sexual nature.
The next day, there were numerous text messages
between Ms A and Dr. Brown.
Dr. Brown arranged to see Ms A in the office for an
appointment two days later. The last office appointment was on a scheduled appointment date the following week. In between the yoga date and the date
of the last office appointment, the Committee found
that Ms A and Dr. Brown went for walks in the
neighbourhood, went to yoga together, held hands,
hugged, were affectionate during a hiking trip and,
on either the day of the hiking trip or the next day,
first engaged in oral sex. The Committee found that
Dr. Brown engaged in sexual abuse of Ms A both by
touching her in a sexual manner and by engaging in
oral sex with her prior to Ms A’s last appointment in
September 2011.
Dr. Brown admitted that he had sexual intercourse
with Ms A on the date of the last office visit and on
the next day. The Committee found that Dr. Brown
was no longer attending or actively treating Ms A after the date of the last office visit, however, the Committee concluded that the last office visit did not end
the professional relationship in the circumstances.
The Committee stated that the duration of the professional relationship will depend on the potential for
the physician to exploit the trust or emotions of the
patient or otherwise use the influence of their previous physician-patient relationship. In such circumstances, the physician-patient relationship endures
and the physician remains accountable, whether or
not the service provided has ended. The Committee
found that the professional relationship between Ms
A and Dr. Brown endured beyond the last office visit
of September 2011, and was still alive at the time of
the last communication between them.
Based on these facts, the Committee found that Dr.
Brown engaged in sexual intercourse with Ms A after
the date of the last office appointment while she was
still his patient.
Also, the Committee found that Dr. Brown’s
inappropriate behaviour and numerous boundary
violations clearly supported a finding of disgraceful,
dishonourable or unprofessional conduct, as follows:
• Dr. Brown shared personal information with Ms
A between January and April 2011;
• Dr. Brown engaged in encouraging a personal
relationship with Ms A by responding to her gift
Issue 1, 2016 Dialogue
33