discipline summaries
Text of Public Reprimand
Dr. Wing King, the practice of medicine not only requires
medical competence, but the trust of our patients and the
trust of the public. The ability to express compassion and
empathy is an integral part of our patient care. How this
is expressed requires an understanding of how communication, verbal or physical, is received by the patient. As is
often said, communication is what is received, not what
is sent. Physicians must understand this concept. You
exceeded the appropriate boundaries of this patient. This
is unprofessional behaviour.
Hopefully this appearance in front of your self-governing regulator will enhance your understanding of appropriate boundaries. We expect there will be no reason for
you to appear before us again.
DR. EFG
The Discipline Committee finds that the allegations
against Dr. EFG are not proved. The Committee finds
that Dr. EFG did not engage in sexual abuse of his
patient and did not engage 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. The Committee therefore dismissed the
allegations of professional misconduct against Dr. EFG.
The allegations of sexual abuse in this case had
arisen from the alleged inappropriate and sexualized
touching by Dr. EFG of Ms X during an examination
at an office visit in April 2012.
Dr. EFG is a practising Obstetrician/Gynecologist.
He had seen Ms X for care prior to and subsequent to
the birth of her child in 2009.
Ms. X, who was in her twenties at the time of the
alleged incident in 2012, was referred to Dr. EFG in
late 2011 for assessment of chronic abdominal pain
and was seen by him in consultation in April 2012.
At this visit, it is alleged that Dr. EFG inappropriately
touched Ms. X in a sexualized manner. It is alleged
that after Dr. EFG’s nurse left the room following the
initial examination, Dr. EFG was alone in the examining room with Ms. X at which time she asked Dr.
EFG to examine ‘a lump’ in the area of her groin. Dr.
50
Dialogue Issue 3, 2016
EFG is alleged to have then rubbed her clitoris for a
period of time in what was said by Ms. X to be an attempt to arouse her.
Ms. X suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder
(BPD) and has been under intermittent psychiatric
care. She has a history of prior sexual abuse both as a
child and as a teenager.
Dr. Z, a Forensic Psychiatrist who has participated
in many legal proceedings as an expert witness for
health professionals facing allegations of misconduct
by psychiatric patients, was called as a witness for the
defense. He outlined the characteristics of patients
diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. He
testified that patients with BPD are overrepresented
in the group of patients who falsely accuse physicians
of sexual abuse, but at the same time are particularly
vulnerable to being sexually abused themselves.
Dr. EFG testified that he had no indication that Ms.
X was upset at the conclusion of her visit with him. It
was Dr. EFG’s recollection that after the nurse left, Ms.
X asked him about other options to explain her pain.
She was particularly concerned that he did not feel that
a laparoscopy, which she had assumed would follow the
assessment, was indicated. He recalled Ms. X being very
anxious to discuss what other possibilities might exist to
diagnose or treat her abdominal pain. He also recalled
returning to her side and repeating the abdominal exam
after the nurse had left the room. He stated that he was
looking for other possibilities which might have been
missed on his first examination.
Dr. EFG did not specifically recall Ms. X asking
about a lump or her directing him to feel any particular area. In cross examination, he stated that had he
been asked to examine a certain lesion he would have,
but denied he had or would ever touch a patient or
Ms. X inappropriately.
On balance, it was the Committee’s view that there
was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence to prove
the allegations against Dr. EFG. His testimony was
credible and reliable. The Committee did not accept
the evidence of Ms. X as re liable.
The Committee, in its final analysis, accepted that
Dr. EFG did a second examination of the vulvar area
after the nurse left the room. The Committee found
that Ms. X’s version of events and interpretation of the
examination was entirely compatible with a misinterpretation of a normal physical examination.