discipline summaries
There is no dispute that an examination of Ms. Y’ s heart and lungs was clinically indicated; both experts agree on this point. Ms. Y referred to a grazing of her nipple, suggesting that the touching in question was more likely to have been inadvertent. The Committee found that the evidence with respect to Ms. Y’ s allegations does not meet the requisite standard to make a finding of either sexual abuse or disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct and therefore these allegations are not proven.
Ms. Z With respect to the examination of Ms. Z, it is common ground that he touched her left breast with one of his hands. The Committee finds, however, that it has not been proven that this touching was not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided. It is reasonable to conclude that proper auscultation of the apex required Ms. Z’ s breast to be displaced. There was no suggestion that her nipple was touched. This touching lacks a clear sexual character as distinct from the four patients whose breasts and nipples were touched underneath their bras. The Committee finds the allegation that Dr. Peirovy sexually abused Ms. Z by touching her breast in a sexual manner during this examination was not proven. Dr. Peirovy demonstrated egregiously poor judgment in suggesting to Ms. Z that they could see each other socially, in the context of just having compromised her privacy on account of the ill-advised fashion in which he had examined her. Dr. Peirovy appears to have been completely oblivious with respect to the real meaning of boundaries in a physician-patient relationship. He acted in a way which suggests he viewed his patient as a legitimate future object of his social, romantic, and / or sexual interests. He appears to have had no real understanding of the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship or, if he did, his understanding did not deter him in this instance. He knew that doctors are not permitted to date their patients, but he appeared to believe that boundaries would be dissolved by simply terminating the doctor-patient relationship in writing. He completely misunderstood Ms. Z’ s willingness to sign a note to that affect as indicating her interest in him as a prospective social or sexual partner. The Committee found that Dr. Peirovy’ s conduct with respect to this issue was clearly disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional. The Committee also found, however, that it did not amount to sexual abuse. There was no conversation or proposition of a sexual nature. What Dr. Peirovy was proposing was the possibility that he and Ms. Z could see each other socially in the future, admitting that he found her interesting and attractive. He acknowledged that, if he had established a relationship with her, sexual activity might have occurred at some point. He did not follow through with his stated intention to call Ms. Z. There was, in fact, no further contact between the two. The Committee observes that many initial social encounters, even if one had occurred in this case, do not progress to sexual relationships. The Committee was not persuaded that Dr. Peirovy’ s tentative overtures towards Ms Z amounted to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature.
Suitability to Practice There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that Dr. Peirovy has been found guilty of two counts of assault, as indicated above. Counsel for Dr. Peirovy argued that, in the circumstances of this case, the offences are not relevant to his suitability to practise. It is submitted that the findings of guilt for simple assault were premised on a technical breach of the Criminal Code related to Dr. Peirovy’ s failure to obtain specific consent from his patients to place his stethoscope on or near the patients’ nipples, in the context of an otherwise appropriate and clinically indicated physical examination. In essence, counsel for Dr. Peirovy argued the findings of guilt arise on account of a technicality and, because Dr. Peirovy’ s actions were blameless in all other respects, this should not be relevant to his suitability to practise. The Committee did not accept this submission. The Committee found that the manner in which Dr. Peirovy touched his young female patients during examination is entirely relevant to his suitability to practise. The absence of patient consent to this touching, during these particularly sensitive physical examinations, cannot be dismissed as a mere technicality. The Court has found that one aspect of Dr. Peirovy’ s examination of these patients amounted to a criminal assault. It is in fact difficult for the Committee to imagine a clearer example of an offence
70
Dialogue Issue 1, 2017