DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
DR . BCD DR . EFG
On June 15 , 2017 the Discipline Committee released its decision in the case of Dr . BCD and found that the allegations that he had engaged in disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and the sexual abuse of a patient were not proved . Dr . BCD is an obstetrician / gynecologist . The patient attended 11 pre-natal appointments with Dr . BCD beginning in July 2007 . Patient A alleged that in the course of these appointments , Dr . BCD digitally penetrated her vagina , in the guise of performing a digital vaginal examination , at every visit , except perhaps two or three visits , when she was accompanied by her mother or the baby ’ s father . Dr . BCD denied performing digital vaginal examinations at any time , and denied touching Patient A ’ s vagina in a sexual or inappropriate manner . The College and Dr . BCD agreed that there were no medical reasons for Dr . BCD to perform digital vaginal examinations in the prenatal medical appointments that he had with Patient A . The Committee heard the testimony of Patient A , Dr . BCD , Dr . BCD ’ s office assistant , Ms . H . The Committee found both Dr . BCD and Ms . H to be credible and their testimony reliable . When testifying , Patient A seemed to be honest and sincere as to what her memories were . However , the Committee found that her overall memory was poor and not as good as she believed . There were instances when she appeared to embellish her version of events . The Committee did not accept her evidence that her memory of her appointments of 2007 was better today because she had “ talked to others ” about them and had thought about them . Memory does not improve with the passage of time . Ultimately , the Committee was not convinced of the reliability of Patient A ’ s evidence . The Committee concluded that Patient A ’ s evidence is unreliable and her version of events was simply not plausible . The Committee found that the evidence to support the allegations was not clear , cogent and convincing .
On June 19 , 2017 , the Discipline Committee released its reasons in the case of Dr . EFG and found that the allegations that he had engaged in sexual abuse and disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct were not proved . Patient A testified that , during a single visit at a walk-in clinic in December 2014 , Dr . EFG touched her breasts in a sexual manner and made inappropriate remarks to her about her appearance . Dr . EFG denied the allegations . The Committee heard Patient A ’ s testimony and felt empathetic to her and accepted that she believed that she had been touched in a sexual manner . However , the Committee found her testimony to be unreliable , because of multiple inconsistencies , particularly , in relation to the clinical records of Dr . EFG and another doctor who worked at the clinic .
The Committee found that the evidence to support the allegations was not clear , cogent , and convincing .
DR . XYZ
On June 26 , 2017 , the Discipline Committee released its decision in the case of Dr . XYZ and found that the allegations of sexual impropriety and disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct were not proved . It had been alleged that in or around 1985-1987 , Dr . XYZ , a general practitioner , had engaged in sexual impropriety with Patient A and engaged in disgraceful , dishonourable or unprofessional conduct by , among other things , massaging Patient A and touching Patient A ’ s genitals inappropriately and / or sexually . Although the Committee accepts that Patient A believed that she had been touched in a sexual manner by Dr . XYZ , the Committee found Patient A ’ s testimony to be unreliable because of multiple and significant inconsistencies . The Committee found
ISSUE 2 , 2018 DIALOGUE 83