discipline summaries professional boundaries with Mr. X during the doctorpatient relationship( by engaging in a close friendship) and after the doctor-patient relationship, by commencing a sexual relationship with him approximately 12 months after the end of the doctor-patient relationship.
Sexual Abuse and Disgraceful Dishonourable and Unprofessional Conduct regarding Ms Y The Committee found that Dr. McIntyre engaged in boundary violations with her patient, Ms Y, in that a close personal relationship existed between the two. Dr. McIntyre allowed herself to become a close friend of Ms Y, often involved in her personal and financial affairs, including helping her with loans, financial issues and her bank account. Ms Y often travelled with Dr. McIntyre and her children, which included Dr. Mc- Intyre and Ms Y sharing a bed. Dr. McIntyre engaged Ms Y in caring for her children and performing household chores. Dr. McIntyre was found in bed together with Ms Y, both partially unclothed and in the nude on separate occasions. The Committee also found that Dr. McIntyre sexually abused Ms Y by engaging in a romantic kiss with her in November or December 2010, while Ms Y was Dr. McIntyre’ s patient. Ms Y was a vulnerable patient. She had been a patient of Dr. McIntyre for many years and the doctor took advantage of her position of power to become involved with her socially and ultimately, sexually.
Penalty and Reasons for Penalty The College sought revocation of Dr. McIntyre’ s certificate of registration, a reprimand, costs, and the posting of an irrevocable letter of credit or other security acceptable to the College for funding of counselling under section 85.7 of the Code. The College submitted that this penalty was warranted given the nature of Dr. McIntyre’ s professional misconduct. Counsel for Dr. McIntyre argued that the penalty of revocation was excessive. He argued that the additional finding of sexual abuse involved a single kiss, which did not warrant revocation. The Committee’ s penalty determination is based on the guiding principle of protection of the public. An appropriate penalty should be proportionate to the misconduct and must also serve as a general deterrent to the profession and specific deterrent to the member.
The penalty should express the profession’ s denunciation of the misconduct, and uphold the profession’ s honour and reputation. The public’ s confidence in the profession’ s ability to self-regulate in the public interest is also an important penalty principle. Where appropriate, the penalty should also allow for rehabilitation of the member.
The Committee also considered the nature and context of the misconduct. Conduct which takes place over a period of time, involves a breach of trust, and includes preying on vulnerable patients warrants significant sanction.
Aggravating Factors The Committee found that Dr. McIntyre’ s boundary violations with Ms Y were not isolated incidents but they rather took place over a lengthy period of time. Ms Y was Dr. McIntyre’ s close friend and took care of many of Dr. McIntyre’ s needs around the home. The kiss was only one aspect of this abusive relationship. They were clearly in an intimate relationship at the same time Ms Y was Dr. McIntyre’ s patient. Dr. McIntyre sustained close personal relationships with both Ms Y and Mr. X concurrently with her doctor-patient relationships. The doctor-patient relationship was terminated with Mr. X before the sexual relationship commenced. However, with Ms Y, the doctor-patient relationship continued during their sexual relationship. Both patients were vulnerable. Ms Y had previous hospitalizations. Her mental illness was serious and ongoing. It was inappropriate for Dr. McIntyre to be prescribing medication and continuing to treat Ms Y because of their personal relationship, which involved kissing and other boundary violations. The Committee was disturbed by the abuse of power and control in this situation.
Mitigating Factors It is to Dr. McIntyre’ s credit that she admitted the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Admission, obviating the need for an undoubtedly lengthier hearing. The Committee agreed with defence counsel that Dr. McIntyre’ s penalty should be commensurate and pro-
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 4, 2016 Dialogue 71