discipline summaries
reer. Especially so when that career has been in an area that has provided controversy, conflict, and even threats of harm to its practitioners, like yourself, and which has provided help for women at a time when they are extremely vulnerable and in distressing circumstances. It is therefore with extreme concern and distress that we view your widespread practice failures of infection control and prevention of infection, lack of even the most basic standards of decontamination, sterilization, and cleanliness. These are derelictions that put these already distressed and vulnerable patients at significant risk of personal harm. Furthermore, we roundly condemn your insensitive approach to communication, impersonal communication by email, your failure to understand the physical and vocal responses and needs, again, of this vulnerable, sensitive and distressed population. There is no doubt that this penalty, equivalent to revocation, is the only penalty to truly ensure that the administration of justice is upheld.
DR. WAYNE EDGAR STANLEY
Practice Location: Lindsay Practice Area: Family Medicine
Hearing Information: Statement of Fact; Uncontested Allegations
On August 21, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Stanley committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of patients, 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. Stanley did not contest the allegations. Patient A saw Dr. Stanley five times between October 2006 and January 2012. Patient A had experienced difficulty with his left testicle. In January 2012, following discussion between Patient A and Dr. Stanley about the fact that Patient A’ s left testicle was still sore, Dr. Stanley asked Patient A to get on the examination table, remove his pants and lie down. Dr. Stanley applied lubricant onto Patient A’ s genitals, including his testicles and penis. Dr. Stanley started touching Patient A’ s genital area, including his testicles and penis, and asked Patient A when he had last ejaculated. Dr. Stanley also asked how easy it was for Patient A to have an erection. Patient A initially assumed that these questions and the touching were part of a clinical examination. Dr. Stanley began massaging the base of Patient A’ s penis and rolled down his foreskin. At this point, Patient A started to wonder if this was more than clinical touching. Dr. Stanley said he was trying to increase the blood flow and told Patient A that he would have to achieve an erection for the examination that Dr. Stanley was going to conduct. Dr. Stanley masturbated Patient A by moving his hand up and down the shaft of Patient A’ s penis. Dr. Stanley asked Patient A where his sensitive places were located, what gets him erect, and what excites him. Patient A became nervous and said“ this is weird” a few times. Dr. Stanley abruptly stopped masturbating Patient A. Patient B saw Dr. Stanley 15 times between October 2006 and February 2013. Patient B had suffered injuries, including a fracture of the pelvis. At an appointment in 2009, Dr. Stanley raised the issue of a“ broken penis” [ Peyronies Disease ]. Dr. Stanley instructed Patient B to get on the examination table and pull down his pants. Dr. Stanley masturbated Patient B by moving his hand up and down the shaft of Patient B’ s penis. Dr. Stanley told Patient B that he wanted him to“ get hard” and to ejaculate. He told Patient B to close his eyes and pretend he was with his girlfriend as it would be easier to ejaculate. He commented that Patient B had a“ nice penis”. Dr. Stanley stated that he needed to see how far Patient B could ejaculate. At one point, Dr. Stanley inserted one of his fingers into Patient B’ s rectum. Patient B stated words to the effect,“ this isn’ t going to happen”. Dr. Stanley stopped and Patient B pulled his pants up.
Reasons for Penalty The Committee was disgusted and appalled by the egregious breach of trust inherent in the abuse by Dr. Stanley of these two patients. The legacy of distress caused by Dr. Stanley has led to a complete
62
Dialogue Issue 2, 2016