discipline summaries
in sexual abuse of a patient was not proven. The single clinic treatment was incidental care in the context of Dr. Rai’ s intimate relationship with Ms. A, and also did not create a doctor-patient relationship. It occurred on only a single occasion and Ms. A did not have a family doctor. The evidence was that Ms. A discussed with Dr. Rai ahead of time the fact that she wanted to have a Pap test. Ms. A told him she would feel comfortable seeing him for the pelvic examination. Dr. Rai also ordered blood work for fatigue. It was not an emergency. It was ill-advised of Dr. Rai to treat Ms. A on this occasion at her request. When a physician treats someone with whom they have a family relationship, there is a risk that the relationship will affect the doctor’ s ability to provide quality care. Therefore, Dr. Rai was found to have engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct with respect to treating Ms. A at this clinic visit.
Reasons for Penalty While there was no convincing evidence that routine care was repeated and Dr. Rai was relatively new to practice in Ontario at the time, the Committee noted that he was not absolved of his responsibility with regard to treating family members.
The College’ s policy, Treating Self and Family Members, states that physicians should not treat themselves or family members except for minor conditions or in an emergency situation, and only when another health professional is not available. Dr. Rai’ s clinical care of his partner in relation to the clinic visit described above did not fit into this category of care. The Committee commented that Dr. Rai could easily have had a colleague take care of his partner’ s needs, and that“ when a doctor treats a family member, other issues may cloud judgment.” Counsel for the College and counsel for the member made a joint submission as to an appropriate penalty and a costs order. The proposed order included terms requiring Dr. Rai to be reprimanded, that his certificate of registration be suspended for a period of two months, that he participate in the next available course on“ Understanding Boundaries and Managing the Risks Inherent in the Doctor-Patient Relationship,” and that he pay costs of the proceeding in the amount of $ 4,460. The Committee considered and accepted the joint submission regarding penalty.
The Committee observed that the penalty proposed should address the principles of protection of the public, disapproval and denunciation of the wrongful conduct, maintenance of public confidence in the integrity and self-regulating capacity of the profession, specific and general deterrence, and the rehabilitative needs of the member, if applicable. The Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty since it was determined to be reasonable, fair, and to fulfil these principles. The proposed cost award against Dr. Rai was also found to be appropriate. The Committee commented that Dr. Rai’ s conduct was not acceptable and brought the practice of medicine into disrepute. A suspension of Dr. Rai’ s certificate of registration would protect the public and provide specific deterrence to the member. The general membership of the College would also be reminded that providing care to family members is not acceptable, except in exceptional circumstances. A reprimand would serve to denunciate the conduct on behalf of all of the profession. Maintenance of the public’ s confidence in the College’ s ability to regulate itself would be served by the totality of the penalty. It would serve to rehabilitate Dr. Rai. It would further ensure that he learns that his actions were outside of those considered professional and acceptable. The boundaries course would teach him how to approach the care of family members. In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered that Dr. Rai’ s certificate of registration be suspended for two months, that he be reprimanded, and that he participate in a Boundaries Course. The Committee also ordered Dr. Rai to pay the College its costs of this proceeding in the amount of $ 4,460.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Rai waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand.
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.
68
Dialogue Issue 2, 2017