discipline summaries
Order For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the Doctor’ s Name.
Dr. JAVAD PEIROVY
Practice Location: Toronto Area of Practice: General Practice
Hearing InformATion: Contested Hearing, January 12 to 16 and 27, 2015
On July 17, 2015, the Discipline Committee found that Dr. Javad Peirovy committed acts of professional misconduct, in that he engaged in the sexual abuse of patients; he 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; and he has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to his suitability to practise. The Discipline Committee found that Dr. Peirovy sexually abused four patients, Ms. U, Ms. V, Ms. W, and Ms. X. The Committee found that Dr. Peirovy placed his stethoscope directly on Ms. U’ s nipples and cupped her breasts with his hand, that he did not have consent to touch his patient in this manner and that there was no clinical reason to examine Ms. U in this way. The cupping of her breasts with his hand and the placing of the stethoscope directly on her nipples are actions which, to the objective observer, would be construed as sexual in nature. Regardless of Dr. Peirovy’ s motivation, this deliberate touching of the nipples and breasts during a chest examination was a violation of Ms. U’ s sexual integrity and constitutes sexual abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Peirovy placed his stethoscope directly on Ms. V’ s nipples during the course of his examination, that he did not have consent to touch his patient in this manner and that there was no clinical reason to examine Ms. V in this way. The placing of the stethoscope directly on her nipples would, to the objective observer, be construed as sexual in nature. Regardless of Dr. Peirovy’ s motivation, this deliberate touching of her nipples during a chest examination was a violation of Ms. V’ s sexual integrity and constitutes sexual abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Peirovy touched Ms. W’ s nipples with his fingers during the course of his examination, that Dr. Peirovy did not have consent to touch his patient in this manner and that there was no clinical reason to examine Ms. W in this way. The touching of her nipples, to the objective observer, would be construed as sexual in nature. Regardless of Dr. Peirovy’ s motivation, the deliberate touching of her nipples during a chest examination was a violation of Ms. W’ s sexual integrity and constitutes sexual abuse. The Committee found that during the course of his examination of Ms. X, Dr. Peirovy cupped her breasts and used his fingers to put pressure on her nipples, which she described as“ tweaking”, that Dr. Peirovy did not have consent to touch his patient in this manner and that there was no clinical reason to examine Ms. X in this way. The cupping of her breasts with his hand and“ tweaking” of her nipples are actions which, to the objective observer, would be construed as sexual in nature. Regardless of Dr. Peirovy’ s motivation, the deliberate touching of her breasts and nipples during a chest examination was a violation of Ms. X’ s sexual integrity and constitutes sexual abuse. The Committee found that Dr. Peirovy’ s conduct with respect to these four patients, Ms. U, Ms. V, Ms. W, and Ms. X, would also reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. Regarding a fifth patient, Ms. Z, Dr. Peirovy conducted a cardiac examination during which Ms. Z’ s breasts were left fully exposed due to a miscommunication between Dr. Peirovy and Ms. Z. The Committee stated it was Dr. Peirovy’ s responsibility as the physician to take steps to ensure effective communication with respect to a sensitive examination of
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
Issue 1, 2017 Dialogue 65