DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES
regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be
regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or
unprofessional.
Dr. Gordon, a neurologist specializing in the evalu-
ation and treatment of widespread pain, neuropathic
pain and pelvic and genital pain, had an appointment
with Patient A, in March 2016. Patient A’s main con-
cern at the appointment was pain in her feet.
After reviewing Patient A’s chart, Dr. Gordon in-
dicated he wanted to do an examination. He did not
offer or provide Patient A with a chaperone for the
examination. During the examination, Dr. Gordon
used a cotton swab to test parts of Patient A’s body,
beginning with her arms, legs and feet. Without ask-
ing and without an adequate explanation to Patient
A, he slightly exposed Patient A’s breast and touched
it with the swab. Dr. Gordon then asked Patient A to
stand and face the wall. Without asking and without
an adequate explanation to Patient A, he pulled up the
back of her hospital gown to expose her buttocks and
touched parts of her buttocks with the swab.
Dr. Gordon then asked Patient A to lie down on
the bed to check for vulvar pain. Patient A has a
history of sexual abuse and attempted to avoid the
exam by telling Dr. Gordon she was menstruating.
Dr. Gordon said he was fine to proceed and Patient
A complied. Dr. Gordon did not explain to Patient
A why he wanted to examine her vagina or what he
was about to do. Without an explanation adequate
for Patient A, Dr. Gordon used the cotton swab to
lightly touch parts of Patient A’s labia, including her
internal labia. The experience left Patient A feeling
caught off guard and very upset.
An expert retained by the College opined that the
physical examination conducted with a cotton swab
was appropriate to test for allodynia. However, the ex-
pert opined that in obtaining consent for examination
of breasts, buttocks or pelvic areas, a physician should
be attuned to ongoing consent. The fact that the
patient did not understand what examination was go-
ing to be performed and why it was being performed
implied a serious breakdown in communication.
Undertaking
On January 26, 2018, the Inquiries, Complaints, and
Reports Committee made an interim order directing
the Registrar to suspend Dr. Gordon’s certificate of
registration. Dr. Gordon has not practised since that
Order took effect. Dr. Gordon has undertaken to
resign his certificate of registration effective immedi-
ately and not to apply or re-apply for registration as
a physician to practise medicine in Ontario or any
other jurisdiction.
ORDER
In light of Dr. Gordon’s undertaking to resign and
to not re-apply, the Committee ordered and directed
that Dr. Gordon attend before the panel to be rep-
rimanded and that Dr. Gordon pay hearing costs to
the College in the amount of $6,000.
For complete details, please see the full decision at
www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the
doctor’s name.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Gordon waived his
right to an appeal and the Committee administered the
public reprimand.
DR. EMAD SAMIR LUKA GUIRGUIS
PRACTICE LOCATION: Mississauga/Oakville
AREA OF PRACTICE: Family Medicine
HEARING INFORMATION: Plea of No Contest; State-
ment of Uncontested Facts; Contested Penalty
On Januray 18, 2018, the Discipline Committee
found that Dr. Guirguis committed an act of profes-
sional misconduct, in that he has engaged in an act
or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that
having regard to all the circumstances would reason-
ably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishon-
ourable, or unprofessional.
Incapacity Investigation
In May 2014, the College received information from
a pharmacist and from a physician that Dr. Guirguis
had been forging prescriptions for Percocet for him-
self using the College registration number and signa-
ture of a colleague with whom he shared an office. In
the context of an investigation into his capacity, Dr.
Guirguis admitted his self-prescribing and admitted
that he had written prescriptions to himself under
another physician’s name.
The capacity assessment did not conclude that
ISSUE 1, 2019 DIALOGUE
49