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