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