DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES priately to Patient A when he told her details of his health, personal history, marriage and family;
• Dr. Porter disclosed sensitive and personal information inappropriately about his adopted son;
• Dr. Porter disclosed information about the mental health of another patient, Patient B, and the personal details of another patient, Patient C. In both cases this was inappropriate;
• Dr. Porter purposefully acted to undermine the safeguards put in place to protect patients by having Patient A move to an area of his office which could not be captured on video; and
• Dr. Porter failed to preserve all videos, as he was required to do under a prior College order.
REASONS FOR PENALTY The appropriate penalty for Dr. Porter’ s conduct was contested. Counsel for the College submitted that revocation was the only appropriate penalty. In addition to a required reprimand, the College also asked for costs of $ 36,200, which represented the tariff rate( seven days at $ 4,460 and one day at $ 5,000). The College also asked that Dr. Porter reimburse the College for any funds required by Patient A for counselling and that Dr. Porter provide a letter of credit to certify payment in the maximum amount of $ 16,060. Counsel for Dr. Porter submitted that a sixmonth suspension followed by a condition that he only treat male patients in the future, a reprimand, and additional remedial / educational terms was the appropriate penalty. The Committee granted the penalty order sought by the College. It found that revocation of Dr. Porter’ s certificate of registration was warranted. The Committee ordered that his certificate of registration be revoked, that he be reprimanded, that he pay $ 36,200 in costs to the College, and that he provide a letter of credit to cover any costs of counselling required by Patient A in the amount of $ 16,060. The Committee stated that the principles relevant to the imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceedings are well-established. The protection of the public is the paramount consideration. Other principles include maintenance of public confidence in the reputation and integrity of the profession and in the principle of effective self-governance; general deterrence as it applies to the membership as a whole; specific deterrence as it applies to the member; and the potential for the member’ s rehabilitation. Dr. Porter was a seasoned psychiatrist, well-versed in transference and countertransference. He was fully aware of appropriate boundaries which he repeatedly both crossed and violated. Dr. Porter was instigative in activating and promoting sexualized behaviour with an extremely vulnerable patient. He minimized his role and clearly misrepresented the relationship with Patient A to a psychiatrist who was his supervisor. The Committee was of the view that Dr. Porter’ s conduct was predatory in nature, serious, and inexcusable. Patient A’ s victim impact statement clearly illustrated the harm that Dr. Porter’ s behaviour had done to her, and emphasized the damage to the profession where trust is violated.
Dr. Porter had previously appeared before the Discipline Committee in 2001 and 2002 when, among other things, it was alleged that he had sexually abused patients, had engaged in conduct that was unbecoming a physician, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct. It was also alleged that Dr. Porter was incompetent. Dr. Porter betrayed the public trust invested in the medical profession in a number of ways in a number of levels, betraying the trust of his patient, the College, the Court( by violating its order regarding video recording), his psychiatric supervisor, and the public at large. This misconduct is inconsistent with the practice of medicine. Notwithstanding the effect of repeated suspensions, terms, conditions or limitations of his certificate of registration and considerable costs, Dr. Porter demonstrated willful ungovernability. His education and subsequent re-education, including a course addressing boundary issues, had little or no effect in preventing Dr. Porter from repeating his misconduct. Dr. Porter sought out ways to circumvent measures placed to protect the public. The Committee was left to conclude that he neither respected the need to be governed nor does he wish to be governed. In such circumstances, revocation is the only recourse to adequately achieve protection of the public.
Full decisions are available online at www. cpso. on. ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’ s name.
ISSUE 3, 2017 DIALOGUE 63