DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
The College retained another psychiatrist to pro-
vide his opinion on the care and treatment Dr. Laws
provided to Patient B. This expert opined that Dr.
Laws did not demonstrate insight or acknowledge-
ment with regards to the boundary issues, nor did he
express any sense of responsibility with regards to his
role in this doctor-patient relationship. Dr. Laws also
did not provide an adequate explanation regarding
his prescription of opiates to [Patient B], and did not
mention the use of these drugs in subsequent reports
to other physicians.
REASONS FOR PENALTY
The Committee considered that protection of the pub-
lic from further misconduct by Dr. Laws to be of the
utmost importance in this case. Mandatory revocation
achieves this objective. It is also vital to maintain the
public’s confidence in the College’s ability to self-
regulate in the public interest. The penalty provides
specific and general deterrence and communicates the
profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.
Aggravating Factors
1. D
r. Laws’ sexual abuse of Patient A occurred over
a two year period. Patient A was younger, vulner-
able, and in need of treatment by a physician. This
clearly placed Dr. Laws in a position of authority
and trust which he abused by seducing Patient A
into an inappropriate personal relationship for the
purposes of sexual exploitation. When a position
of trust is found to have existed, this can be con-
sidered an aggravating factor. The Committee felt
strongly that a position of trust as well as a power
imbalance existed in the relationship between Pa-
tient A and Dr. Laws. Dr. Laws’ abuse of a vulner-
able patient over the span of two years is a most
disgraceful disregard of the fundamental principles
of the profession.
2. Dr. Laws’ patients suffered because of his bound-
ary violations. For example, Patient B became Dr.
Laws’ tenant and employee, both of which are
boundary violations in their own right. Dr. Laws
even opened a joint bank account with Patient B
into which Patient B’s social assistance payments
were deposited. Dr. Laws also prescribed narcotic
medication to Patient B without an adequate
58
DIALOGUE ISSUE 3, 2017
explanation while maintaining both the doctor-pa-
tient and landlord-tenant relationship. In the same
vein, Patient A told the College that “there isn’t
really a clear boundary between friend and doctor
and it’s always been kind of frustrating to me.”
3. Dr. Laws has not demonstrated an understanding
or appreciation of how important boundaries are
to the practice of medicine. The parameters of the
doctor-patient relationship are at the core of the
capacity to treat. Physicians are taught early in
clinical training to provide care only according to
the patient’s needs, not their own; to avoid harm
to the patient; to respect the individual; and not
to exploit the patient’s dependency on the physi-
cian, while maintaining privacy and truthfulness.
Trust, integrity, and a commitment to the patient’s
well-being are essential to the provision of safety
in the therapeutic environment. When he was
first contacted by the College in 2009 and real-
ized there were concerns about his conduct with
Patient B, Dr. Laws ceased some of his boundary-
violating behaviour. However, Dr. Laws continued
to employ Patient B as recently as late 2012.
4. Dr. Laws displayed no insight into his behaviour.
5. Dr. Laws inverted the victimization phenomenon
by claiming he was the victim. He accepted no
responsibility of his role in the doctor-patient
relationship.
6. Dr. Laws treated Patient A with stimulant medica-
tions in high doses and on one occasion provided
the patient with a cookie that had marijuana in
it. After eating it, the patient developed paranoid
psychotic symptoms, eventually being admitted
to the hospital where he was treated for psychosis.
This could have been related to the marijuana con-
sumption, or a high dose of the stimulant medica-
tion, or a combination of the two. The expert, on
reviewing Patient A’s chart, felt the doses of stimu-
lant medication exceeded the standard maximum.
There was no regard for cardiovascular or psycho-
sis risks related to these high doses. There is no
evidence that Dr. Laws was monitoring these risks,
and the use of an illicit drug, probably cannabis,