To ensure transparency and encourage open dialogue, the feedback we receive is posted on our website in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Current month ye@r day *
Leave this field empty *
I would like to know what the purpose of this disclosure would be. How will this information help someone making a decision about choosing a physician? Furthermore, criminal code violations are public information and the public can obtain them from other sources. Why should they be on the CPSO’s website?
Is this supposed to somehow help the public, or is this being done to somehow bow to the pressure from the the Toronto Star which has been conducting a campaign of misinformation against the CPSO and doctors?
the Toronto Star has been conducting a campaign of mass misinformation and deception about the CPSO and doctors. The Star writers know but purposely ignore in their articles that the CPSO is one of the most transparent physicians regulatory organizations in North America. Why does the Star do it? because this kind of misleading and one-sided hot-button tabloid journalism gets them readership which they have been sorely losing to internet news outlets.
Maybe there should be a “College of Journalists of Ontario”, where one could complain about journalists who do not uphold standards of journalism. Unfortunately there isn’t one and they can write any inaccuracies about anyone or anything, without any integrity.
The Toronto Star has been maligning the medical profession for decades; notably in its with hunt in the nineteen seventies when it gave misinformation and outright lies uttered by the ministers of health
I agree. Do physicians not have a right to privacy and to individual rights
One thing which is missing from these proposals, and from the discussion, is any consideration of convictions being “spent” or the person rehabilitated, or being given an opportunity to reform and repent and put their past misdeeds behind them. It looks as though once the information has been put on the public register, it stays there for life. I am in favour of “tempering justice with mercy” and I would suggest a time limit of, for example, 10 years for serious offences and 5 years for lesser offences, following which the information could be removed from the register and the physician could have the opportunity to start afresh. However, I get the impression that the College listens more to the Toronto Star than to its members, so I am not optimistic that anything like this will happen.
Once something is on the public register website, it will never be erased from the internet. Other sites constantly copy or refer to information on the CPSO site.
Once a bit of information is on the worldwide web, it could never be entirely erased. Ask any internet expert.
This “transparency project has been spearheaded in the last couple of years, by only a couple of malpractice lawyers with handy access to some of the Star’s reporters. This becomes apparent after reading reading the articles about this topic which repeatedly quote the same malpractice lawyers in this regard.
Even though legislation says College matters are inadmissible in a court proceeding, they are probably hoping that more disclosure of a physician’s past may sway juries in their favor, winning cases and getting bigger awards.
I am hoping to read CMPA’s comment about the “transparency project” on this board.
If the Toronto Star wants transparency, how about a website where physicians can access the criminal records of patients before deciding whether to admit them to our roster? How about a level playing field? How about the CPSO being more supportive to physicians instead of bowing to public and media pressure?
How would the public react if physicians were made privy to their criminal code findings and used that information as a basis for accepting them as patients or not?
This is another example of denigrating the rights of physicians and promoting frank discrimination against them.
It would be an injustice to physicians for the CPSO to add such information to the public register.
This is typical for a College that does not respect its members.
High time for a US-type medical board to take over regulating physicians-it’s independent and more importantly does not have to bend over backwards to satisfy the Toronto Star and other media.
US medical boards also don’t get their entire funding from the doctors. The annual fee for some US medical boards is $100 per year.
Also even though they are not “self-regulated”, the composition of their council is the same as the College here, with the same ratio of physician/public members.
And since they are not “self-regulated”, they don’t have to constantly get bullied and appease the gov, public, and newspapers on issues to preserve this self-regulation which may not even offer any real privileges to begin with.
It would also be a good thing for the college to respect patients and their families
I am not sure how the College is not already “respecting” patients and their families.
Sometimes, people think by throwing the word family in, they make themselves sound sacred. Physicians have families too. Every time there is a frivolous complaint against a physician, which costs nothing or no risk to file, the physician’s family is thrown into disarray and pain, often for months till there is some resolution.
Hi, my understanding is that criminal code violations and health insurance act violations usually result in a referral to the Discipline Committee anyways. Decisions of the discipline committee are already publicly available information, so I don’t understand the point of posting redundant information on the CPSO website. The provision regarding posting bail conditions does make sense, however.
Patients CanadaMuch healthcare information is not easily accessible to the patients and families involved or to the general public. We applaud any increase in transparency and hope that this initiative succeeds.
that’s not “healthcare” information you are asking for. it’s physician’s private information you want.
maybe physicians should know the criminal records of their patients (and of their families too) they see in their office as well. Why should physicians put their own their staff’s and their family’s safety at risk with a violent offender without knowing?
this shouldn’t be a one-way street.
It would be the information the public is looking for, most physicians in the disciplinary system are there because they have committed a crime with/against a patient/patients.
I would certainly want to know this latest story out of Ontario: Mississauga doctor sees male-only patients after sexual abuse discipline.
It is very inaccurate to say that most physicians are in the disciplinary system because they have violated the criminal code. Perhaps you lack the most basic legal understanding of what the College does. If you did you would understand that the College has no role in criminal law or prosecution. The College does not arrest or convict any physician of a criminal offense. That is done by the police and criminal court. The College can only take action against a physician’s license, not the physician as a person.
And in the case of the Mississauga doctor. The college ruling of sexual abuse is not a criminal finding. The criminal charge of “sexual assault” can only be laid by the police and pursued/tried in criminal court.
Unfortunately like many members of the public, you are not well-informed as to what the College is and does, and confuse it with the police, criminal and civil court.
It is my understanding that if a court decision is under appeal, the decision is not final. Why should an accusation which is therefore not proven be publicized? It is a serious matter to embarrass a person in public. If the information in the CPSO register is publicly available, then not only patients but family and friends, potential employers etc. are being informed. Regardless of whether it was published in the media, the register is an ongoing posting and a permanent reminder; additionally, it may publicize a matter to people who may not have heard about it. For that matter why should even a final court decision be made public to people to whom it is not relevant? Perhaps the person has corrected the errant behaviour and it is no longer current.
Physicians, like the rest of society, have families and friends and a reputation to uphold amongst them. They are constantly in the public eye facing high pressure emotionally charged circumstances. Out of spite, for example, a patient who does not get their way might accuse a doctor of criminal conduct. Similarly an unfair charge of insurance fraud may be levied against them. To publish these unfounded allegations without due process is yet another example of the CPSO bastardizing the rights of its members. Here again it shows its true colours as an ally of the government, conspiring in divide and conquer politics. This is covert mafia-style psychological manipulation of the highest degree.
CPSO clearly states that under the Criminal Code and Health Insurance Act Offences…only findings of guilt.
If there is a finding of guilt – due process was indeed carried out.
Yes, I stand corrected, the policy states finding of guilt only would be published.
Nonetheless I do not see how this is relevant to patient care unless it directly involves abuse of patients in which case not only should the finding be published but the doctor’s license should be revoked.
Here the policy has the potential to make every relatively innocent mistake of a doctor public, ruin their reputation and cause huge amounts of stress resulting in poorer patient care.
Take for example a single DUI charge where a doctor has 2 or 3 drinks at a party, lives down the street but has the misfortune of being pulled over on the way home and convicted of DUI. This could happen to virtually anyone and is no business of the public nor does it affect the quality of care the doctor would provide.
Similarly, a doctor maybe convicted of insurance fraud as a result of making unintentional fraudulent insurance claims. There are much less punishing and effective ways of dealing with this than to publicly humiliating someone which the College is so apt to do, engaging in the the worst of type psychological torture. Talk about bullying and hypocrisy of the highest kind.
By having doctors police each other the government is succeeding in divide and conquer politics and having their way with doctors manipulating them as they desire. A doctor cannot practice in peace these days. Ultimately patient care will suffers by creating a generation of stressed and apathetic doctors. It’s time for a change and unity of doctors, this would be better for everyone.
I would like to add my voice to those of other responders and say that I would like a website where physicians can access the criminal records of patients before deciding whether to admit them to our roster. If the Toronto Star wants “transparency”, I am sure they would have no objection to this, or to journalists’ criminal records being published. How about a level playing field? How about the CPSO being more supportive to physicians instead of bowing to public and media pressure?
I really do not understand this “two-way street” argument posed by several individuals below. Physicians are in a position of power, authority and privilege, while patients are not. Physicians have a different role than that of patients. This is why the amendment is being proposed in the first place. As a patient, I don’t need to know whether or not a physician has committed petty theft. I do need to know however, whether or not that physician has committed any acts of sexual assault. In my opinion, if a physician commits any Offences Against The Person (including sexual abuse), this information should be made publicly available on the CPSO website. (One would think that sexual abuse would warrant an immediate revocation of medical license, but apparently not. Shame.)
Any serious conviction like sexual assault would have the physician referred to the disciplinary committee in which case it would be known on the public register. If the conviction is not serious enough to warrant referral to disciplinary, then it should not be post. The CPSO should not violate physicians’ right to privacy. No other segment of society except for the registry of molesters has their criminal record posted openly to the world. You would need their consent.
I not fully agree that physicians are in a position of absolute power compared to patients. In many instances, patients have more power over a physician in many ways.
Patients can terminate a relationship with a physician at any time for any reason without notice. A physician cannot do that with risking much liability.
A patient can complain to the College about a physician at any time, for anything without incurring any cost or risk. A complaint, even if merit-less, is punishment in itself until decided many months later as it puts the physicians life in extreme anxiety and on hold.
I am not sure if seeing a physician in most circumstances confers more power to the physician. It may have been that way in the long past. These days, in many circumstances, it may be the other way around.
This notion that physicians are in a position of power is non-sense.
Perhaps they once were when doctors had the respect of the people, trusted their judgment and decisions, and did not complain or file lawsuits for every medical misfortune. Patient centered care now rules the roost, not the authoritarian medicine of old.
We live in society of name and shame and blame, doctors are under attack by patients, trust in the doctor-patient relationships eroding. Doctors are becoming defensive and lawyering up and spending much of their careers defending against frivolous complaints and lawsuits.
Politicians have created this environment of trumping doctors’ rights in the name of patient care and so long as it persists defensive medicine will continue to gain steam an underlying antagonistic dynamic to the doctor-patient relationship will prevail.
We are well on our way to U.S style medicine and a policy this this going against doctors will only fuel the fire.
I think the college should focus on professional misconduct, and not over reach itself into the criminal domain. There is already ample laws and punishments for those found guilty of breaking criminal codes. It is now breeching physician rights further by presenting in a separate area of their life, a secondary punishment, that is more of putting a wall of shame rather than protecting patients. I also believe that it will cost to keep up this monitoring, and add little value.
Although I see your point and I agree with most of what you say I think even a focus on professional misconduct is misleading as the College can turn virtually any perceived disruptive behaviour into an investigation of professional misconduct without merit. This funds the College employees and lawyers and our friends at the CMPA but often does not benefit anybody else. It can lead to a long drawn out processes for issues that can be dealt on the spot with in house mechanisms, a simple fine and caution, or simple arbitration. More policies, more excuses for investigations, more stress on physicians, worse care for the public, and for what? So the bureaucrats and lawyers can benefit. Time to restructure the system, independent regulation is in the best interest of doctors.
It is one thing for the College to be transparent and another to put all the info on its website.
If the information is intended for patients, then the extra information can be released to patients directly by mail, or in person.
The deeper layers of information should not be disclosed on the internet. The audience on the internet is the entire world. The info will be misused by parties other than the doctor’s patients.
People forget that till 20 years ago, there was no internet, and just because it’s here it should not be the open forum for all info.
I agree. People can change and to have information that is no longer relevant, posted for the whole world to see, just does not make sense to me.
As a member of the public I want easy access to information about my health care providers. If they are guilty of billing issues (fraud) vs something of a sexual nature I want to know so that I can make an informed decision on whether to see this physician or not. Under the current RHPA the CPSO does not have to report it’s members to the police, it is at the CPSO’s discretion. Therefore if a victim chooses not to call police the police are not involved at all and the CPSO website could be the only place this information is posted for the public. In my opinion the RHPA needs to be updated to force all boards such as the CPSO to report it’s members to the police. However until that is done boards such as the CPSO should report ALL criminal type infractions to the police voluntarily. The public’s trust depends on it.
I think you have College proceedings confused with legal proceedings, and have not understood what is being proposed here.
It’s frustrating for the College, I am sure when many members of the public like you cannot understand and distinguish between a College investigation/finding of guilt, vs. a criminal investigation/findings of guilt. They are completely different and have nothing to do with each other, and one does not aid the other in anyway.
College findings of sexual abuse would be on the website anyways as they would be pursued by the disciplinary committee. On the other hand, criminal findings of guilt about sexual abuse are already on the website because such findings usually cause a disciplinary referral.
Furthermore, this proposal here has nothing to do with the other issue of referral to the police for a sexual abuse finding by the College. That is a completely different topic and is being addressed at the ministry level. The reason the College has not referred such findings automatically to the police are privacy laws protecting patients. Patients are free to contact the police on their own, but the College has not had the authority to override their privacy wishes and automatically contact the police. If the gov passes a law to protect the College in overriding such privacy, then the College can automatically refer a potential sex crime to the police (remember even if found guilty by the college of sexual abuse, it doesn’t mean the person would be found criminally guilty of sexual assault. The burden of proof and acceptable methods of investigation are completely different at the College vs. the Crown attorney).
I would argue if your doctor is guilty of something serious enough to make it your business, then they should no longer have a license to practice i.e. patient abuse, gross incompetence etc.
Why do you have to know about your doctor’s billing issues? Maybe they unintentionally committed billing fraud, have paid the consequence and moved on. You cannot assume this is an indication of generalized unethical or aberrant behaviour which would impact your care.
Maybe the College drops the ball on a case or two but I guarantee you the opposite is more often true i.e. the College is heavy-handed its punishment of doctors.
Of course the public is going to think the College is trying to protect its members. The reality is that doctors are regulated to Orwellian standards and would not put up with it if the were not under the illusion of being ‘self-regulated’.
If doctors were regulated by a third-party and stood united, their rights would be much better protected and patients would realize just how empowered they currently are.
As much as the public trust in doctors is important so to is the doctors’ trust in the public. If the public and the publicly elected policy makers are prepared to throw doctors under the bus they can expect to create a generation of defensive doctors who may practice is such a way that prioritizes protecting themselves and not necessarily acting in the best interest of the public. This is a two-way street.
Yes I agree. This is why doctors should eschew “self-regulation” and lobby the government for the American state medicine board model. This model is more fair, cheaper and more transparent. I think more and more physicians are waking up to this from what I’ve seen.
The gov would never support that. The biggest beneficiary of “self-regulation” is the gov itself. With this system they put the entire cost of regulation onto the professionals, and they get to dictate matters behind the scene anyway. In the American state board system, the cost of regulation is mostly borne by the professional.
The gov now also mandates that EVERY single complaint be investigated. If the gov did and paid for the regulation, many frivolous complaints, now investigated, would be thrown out at entry, in the spirit of saving money.
***Medical board membership fees in North Carolina: $150 per year.***
***CPSO membership fees in Ontario: about $1600 per year.***
between all the professional colleges (over 20 of them in Ont), the gov is saving over a billion dollars a year with this scheme!!
Agreed. There should be a mechanism in the investigation process to allow for frivolous complaints to be dropped without having to move through the entire complaint process. The central issue here is that there is no recognition that the process of moving through a complaint process now is incredibly upsetting and time-consuming for a physician, even when they have done nothing wrong.
Since the gov currently pays nothing toward the cost of regulation of professionals, it has mandated that ALL complaints be investigated. No complaint shall be tagged frivolous frivolous until it gets the investigations committee which could take many months.
One could guess that if the gov were paying for regulation as in other countries, then a sizeable portion of the complaints would be tagged frivolous at entry, and not after many months.
I strongly support the proposed changes.
Similar to the proposed restrictions on bail conditions, criminal convictions should only be posted if they directly affect patient care. For example: violent crimes like assault should be included while convictions for fraud or libel should not be included. Convictions are already public information and so republishing convictions that are irrelevant to patient care unnecessarily infringes on physician privacy.
Further, as a another person already noted, criminal convictions already automatically result in a referral to the college’s disciplinary committee. Anyways.
Finally, if this is considered necessary, perhaps the college should work with the OMA to allow physicians to access the criminal convictions of current or potential patients (with informed consent) in order to ensure the physicians’ own security. There should be some level of equality in expectations that college holds for patients as well as physicians.
title of Star publication:
“Self-regulation is the problem”
The only self thing in self-regulation is self-pay. Doctors pay the entire cost of regulation. Yet, the College is bound by the Medicine Act and many other pieces of legislation. The College has to constantly modify its rules to appease the gov and the media to “preserve self-regulation”, or the facade of it. Half the council is gov-appointed and the doctor half are elected, but they might as well be appointed too, because most physicians don’t vote or vote without knowing anything about the Candidates. (btw this half nonphysician/half physician makeup is also the structure of a non-”self regulated” medical board in the US with only difference that the doctors are not elected. Thus not that much different than the “self-regulated” college).
Getting a College complaint is the most traumatic career event in the life of a physician, yet everyday we have to keep hearing the DEMORALIZING notion, spread by this newspaper, that the “College is protecting its own”. Isn’t this even bordering on libel?
Isn’t it time that the College really get rid of the misleading tag “self-regulation”, because in reality it is not self-regulated, at least not fully and no where near it?
If the gov fully takes over the regulation which seems to be the Star’s wish, the gov should understand that they must then pay for the cost of regulation as with American medical boards. They can’t get to have it both ways (have physicians fully pay for it and then fully regulate the physicians).
I wonder if the College is aware of the proposed Bill 29, Medicine Amendment Act, 2014, and how this Bill can affect this propsoal here.
The bill wants to make everything (all complaints even anoynomous ones, AND all decisiions including education, catuions, etc public on College website). In essence, a caution will become a desciplinary reprimand and the investigation committee will turn into the desciplinary committee. Decisions will have to be posted to the public WITHOUT hearings.
The Bill also wants to list deaths of patients while under a doctor’s care, regardless of if the death had anything to do with the doctor !!
The recent campaign by the Star and this bill are outrageous and surreal. This Bill basically would turn the College webiste into a glorified internet doctor ratings site. Anyone can now easily libel a physician with endless complaints that must all be investigated as per law.
I for one, and many colleagues once they will find out about the depth of this, will be leaving this jurisdiction if anything close to this becomes law. No other jurisdiction has anything even remotely close to this. This is not regulation and about public safety anymore. It’s a witchhunt, and I beleive it is the TRIAL LAWYERS who are behind it, feeding the Star, and lobbying for it.
Link to Bill:
The government, bureaucrats and lawyers are having their way with doctors setting up initiatives such as this to further justify their existence and make their livings off the backs of doctors.
This speaks to the need for reform and stronger leadership and representation for doctors.
If the trends continue doctors will become increasingly demoralized and disillusioned and no doubt many will leave the jurisdiction.
Reform needs to start first and foremost with introducing some common sense in the complaints process to eliminate vexations and/or frivolous complaints. I would argue the majority of complaints fall under this banner and have absolutely nothing to do with protecting public safety.
The current complaints process makes a doctor feel like a criminal often for doing nothing or very little wrong. It allows the most sociopathic and vexatious patients to make a doctor’s life miserable for months for no good reason.
It is time for doctor’s to make a stand to protect their rights, happiness and livelihood, this is spiralling out of control.
This policy proposal states: “1. Transparency provides members of the public with information that enables them to decide who they wish to see for care. 2. It also allows the College to demonstrate how we protect the public through our processes.”
There is a fundamental and legal problem to part 1 of this statement from the College. While part 2 of the statement is true, part 1 is not a College mandate. Under RHPA, the College has the mandate to protect the public. The College has neither the mandate nor the authority to act as a tool to help people choose a practitioner beyond protection. The College’s role in this area ends with those issues that make a physician unsafe to the public. If a physician is unsafe to the public, then the physician should have a limited or revoked license, or a reprimand to inform them. That is the limit.
20 years ago, it would have been unfathomable to expect the College to assume the role of aiding people choose a physician. The reason is that there was no internet. Now since the College happens to have a website, it is being asked to be something more that what its mandate and authority under RHPA allow it to be. This proposal and the current private Bill 29 intend to slowly make the College website a site to sift and sort through physicians to see which one is better to use. The College has always been a regulator of the profession, and not a referral or rating source of the profession. The level of transparency being asked and its intended goal are not within the mandate and scope of the College, and should be abandoned.
true. I think some independent lawyers need to determine if ranking physicians based on non-contested (without a hearing) data is within the CPSO’s authority under the RHPA.
If a physician is not good enough for some people who look at this website, then he/she should not be good enough for everyone. How many patients actually look up a physician on the College website to see if he had a DUI or an “oral caution”? What about a patient stuck in an ER in middle of the night with only one physician available to consult? The patient should say no because the physician had an oral caution about some other matter? No. If the physician is not good enough to practice, then he/she should not be working, period.
The CPSO should stop being so impressionable to everything the Star publishes. If there is a legal challenge, bring it on, otherwise Star hold your peace.
This is getting ridiculous.
I find the language in this amendment ( Proposed by-law Amendment 50.1(1) ) quite convoluted and opaque. Can we stick with plain English and dispense with Legalese, please?
I absolutely object to and do NOT authorize any release of my home address, home phone number, email address, place of birth, or birthdate – to anyone, for any reason!
This data forms the substrate for identity theft.
I hope you will consider carefully how you proceed.
Publishing a finding of a guilt – what does this mean for convictions that have been granted a pardon, or people who receive absolute discharges or conditional discharges – the intention of these outcomes, its allow people to move forward…people who have the above, essentially, after a period of time (and depending on the charge), have NO criminal record when doing a CPIC check. I feel that the College may be doing opposite of what the spirit is when Courts grant a pardon/absolute/conditional discharge…furthermore, if the finding of guilt does not result in a conviction, why does it need to be published? Is the finding of guilt published indefinitely, or will it be removed after a pardon has been granted, or the terms of the discharge been met?
once something is on the internet, it will never be erased. so while it may be sealed, it won’t be from the web.
Self-regulation has been a complete failure. Ask any MVA victim who attends a third party medical examinations and who comes out of the experience with a whole new perspective about Ontario’s physicians when ‘do no harm’ has no meaning.
Keeping information and past complaints history secret from the public causes harm, not only to innocent and disabled accident victims and the public in general but to the profession overall. When complaints are not addressed or kept secret so physicians can protect their own reputations over the safety of patients it raises suspicion about all of Ontario’s physicians and all of the colleges that regulate them. How can it not?
Transparency is key to confidence that those we trust with our health are in fact competent and qualified to do the job. Anything less isn’t acceptable.
The college should stop pretending to do the job and our government should step in and set up a system that does put the public and patients first.
Complaints are free and risk-free to file and can even be made anonymously. One can file an infinite number of them against any physician for anything (eg, wrong color of shirt). To say that they should be all made public to have some bearing is beyond ludicrous, and would not stand up in any court of law! Do you know what libel means? would the College want to get itself in that legal mess?
To make all complaints public would be like list in people’s criminal records, every time someone made a call to the police about them for anything and everything. Most complaints to the police do not end up in an arrest or a charge laid (the equivalent of being referred to disciplinary at the College), and hence are not in someone’s record by any measure.
Not sure what you mean about risk free to the complainant when it comes to accident victims. They risk losing their insurance claim when CPSO blows off their complaint as is usually done. These people have been victimized by those who should be assisting them to recovery.
Making a complaint isn’t something done lightly and when you are injured or disabled you risk more than your own health – it isn’t just the physicians who have reputations to protect and doctors aren’t more ‘special’ than the rest of the general population.
If the CPSO did a better job weeding out the bullying insurer physician assessors then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The bad behavior of a few is having its toll on those decent physicians who do their best for their patients. It’s the cost of ‘self-regulation’ that only masquerades as the real thing while harming some very vulnerable individuals.
Its about accountability and taking responsibility and if the college fails to hold members accountable for their abuses then the public must. Its the fake oversight that is the driver behind the media stories and it is behind the public’s distaste for CPSO and by extension the physicians in Ontario.
Rotten apples like partisan insurer assessors have a way of contaminating the whole barrel when ‘do no harm’ is traded for dollars from insurance companies.
I am entirely supportive of this initiative in its current form.
would you care to expound on your positive “vote”? I don’ think this is just a yes or no poll.
A serious conviction (sexual assault, etc.) already would have the physician referred to the disciplinary committee. This already exists. So what the CPSO is proposing is that doctors be saints and we are not. Can you imagine an otherwise respectable physician who has 3 three drinks at the Christmas party and gets pulled over. This needs to be publicly posted on the CPSO website! Really? The CPSO has not served my interest for a long time.
Any act that affects patients or patient care needs to be reported. This action by the CPSO is tawdry in nature. Yes, I am doctor but it does not mean I don’t have a private life, and no, I’m not perfect. The CPSO needs to do it’s job, namely remove incompetent physicians, not regulate my private life.
First issue that jumps out is that for other citizens (except the child molesters registry), one would need someone’s consent or private info (SIN, etc) to get their records check, but for physicians, it will be open season on the internet. Also remember that once something is on the internet, it will be unerasable, which means even after the finding of guilt has been sealed, expunged etc, there will be traces of left on the internet.
Second and more important issue is that this is not the end of the “transparency” project. This is the beginning. As mentioned elsewhere on the website, the next step is to make oral cautions public knowledge. This means that what is now a public reprimand will be what is an oral caution now without a hearing.
If these measures are approved, medical students and pre-med students need to be given a course or contract over what their rights will be or not be once they are doctors in this province. The proposed measures are an erosion of physician’s rights to due process and maybe a constitutional violation. People need to be given the information before making the life-long decision to enter this profession. They may want to choose alternative professions if they are asked to make fully informed decisions.
Sexual abuse of a patient is unforgivable and any proven allegation in this regard should automatically result in revocation of a doctor’s license.
Having said that, every human has dirty laundry. With the ‘transparency project’ the College seems to be on a mission to make a doctor’s dirty laundry public. This can be counter-productive in many ways.
First, it could lead to a greater shortage of doctors. Many might be discouraged from entering the profession or leave to another jurisdiction that does not expect them to be angels.
Second, it could disillusion the public from their belief that doctors are saintly. Just like the public likes to believe the Pope is saintly, I think it’s integral to preserving the sacredness of the doctor-patient relationship that patients believe their doctors are saintly. If the transparency project succeeds, the long held secret that doctors are fallible may be unveiled and patients health may suffer indirectly.
Thanks for your consideration.
please remember that physicians too can be stressed, have illnesses that disable or kill them.
Most physicians are very conservative people and don’t have a criminal record. I don’t have one. but the issue is one of fairness and practicality.
If the finding of guilt is significant, the College already refers the matter to disciplinary committee, in which case it appears on the physician’s profile. so this is only about those findings that do not warrant referral to disciplinary.
This will open a can of worms now by the Star and others to say why such and such findings didn’t go to disciplinary and should have.
Furthermore, the College says this information may help patients choose among physicians. Well, that may be true, but where do you draw the line, because other private information like a physician’s sexual orientation, marital status, place of birth, etc. may also be important to some patients in their decisions to choose a physicians. At what point, does the College draw the line between a physician’s privacy and helping patients choose a physician?
Other point is that if a physician is not good enough for some who look at the website, why is that physician good for others who don’t have a computer or don’t use the internet? My guess is that a tiny fraction of patients ever bother to check out a physician on this website.
And as someone else here pointed out what happens at 2 am when only one cardiologist is available in the ER and the family finds out about some info on the website that destroy the doctor-patient relationship. Does the patient just wait till the morning to see another one?
Please look at the practical implications of something like this before going on further.
One thing I suggest to the College is to require a police check at renewals and not just use physicians’ word on the renewal application, to find significant findings of guilt that may warrant referral to the disciplinary committee. That is a more practical issue.
How about asking the law society to publish their complaints list? I note that lawyers can fire their clients for non payment, or if the clients lied to them.. many patients lie to their physicians and they are not automatically fired or even called upon their lies. Instead of relying on patient complaints, which may be generated by secondary gain, why doesn’t the college review every doctor every 5 to 10 yrs after they start practicing?
Physicians deserve the same privacy rights as general members of the public. Since court decisions are public, there is no need to highlight judgments on our website.
I’ve commented before and note that when the College group gets something in their heads, little can move them.
I do not believe that adding information to public register about physician criminal activity will be beneficial either to patients nor physicians.
Firstly, the register can be seen by any member of public (not only patient’s referred or seeing the physician). This results in media splattering physicians names on front page of newspapers so to denigrate all physicians in the mind of the public.
Secondly, the criminal code and HIA offenses should be reviewed by College and if there is license suspension due to those offenses, then and only then should this information be posted on public register as a reason for license suspension
Thirdly, we would be the only profession to be scrutinized in such a way – are nurses, and other regulated health practitioners treated in such a manner? What about all our politicians and any government/public worker?
This is going to far, and is veiled under ‘protecting the public’ – that is what the criminal justice system is for – not the CPSO and public register! Worse treatment than child sex offenders!
I agree with most of the comments that are being posted by other physicians.I think we should move from a self regulatory profession to another type of governance if this is what to expect in the future.I was also at a recent event in which a college official stated intent to maybe start to publish all complaints against physicians.As previously stated by another individual patients can make very frivolous complaints that take a lot to time to address and cause significant stress and anxiety for physicians. It takes the college an exorbitant amount of time to address.Physicains should be treated as any other professional would .I am not aware of any governance board for other professions publicly posting what is personal information.The college seems to be overzealous in its actions to protect the public at the cost of physician’s privacy ,health and well being.And yes I agree if this is to be posted for physicians then it should be posted for potential patients and we as a profession should be able to govern ourselves as to whether or not we want to provide care.It seems now we have very little recourse in dealing with very difficult patients. The process for discharging a patient is very onerous and often associated with a complaint that we have to address. I don’t think the college would accept a patient care dismissal because they have been found guilty of an offense.Again if any person is found guilty of an offense it is public knowledge if someone wants to seek that information.Physicians are currently defenseless now when it comes to anonymous internet sites that patients use to post their comments, The college does not seem to be thinking of protecting its physicians at all.
I have some concerns regarding posting of bail conditions. The physician is presumed not guilty and this disclosure may prejudge the physician. The police are not always correct in their charges and I don’t think we would want to encumber a physician with this mark against him when charges may be dropped etc. thank you
Thanks for asking for our input.
This information is already of public knowledge, so why are you adding it to website. It is not for transparency reasons, as this information is available through other sources. Rather, I would suggest that you note on the website that such information is available from other sources. Patients and professionals can obtain this information from these sources. Is there proof that the care we provide will be improved or worsened by your suggestion? Until we can prove this is an improvement over existing practice, you/CPSO are not providing evidence-based support of the care we provide. We already have enough problem with the lack of evidence-based medicine, and we must be very careful to avoid this at the CPSO level. (I fully realize that my input is of VERY low level of evidnce base eg just an opinion.)
Thanks again for asking for broad input.
Physicians are part of the public before they became physicians. Having MD behind the name doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have privacy and loose human rights .
As you requested an opinion re “Postings concerning Criminal Code and Health Insurance Act Offenses” and certain “Bail conditions”, I will provide mine. Generally, I am not of the opinion that an individual’s professional and non-professional activities should be linked in a detrimental way as to interfere with a professional’s reputation. I am against anything that will condemn a man for life for an offence which was perpetrated once. Unless the recorded offence is one of such severity as to have the person removed from the profession and society altogether. Then there would be no necessity for posting for either crime or bail since the offender will no longer be part of the profession.
In my personal opinion, we would be branding and punishing publicly, for life, any individual in such a way as to permanently interfere with a most important aspect of his life… that of earning a living.
I would even consider pardoning a first offence altogether. The repeat offender may be dealt with more severely. Where there is true remorse and a desire to wipe out a crime, never to be repeated, that should be considered. That is the way I feel. Justice must be tempered and such as to reform rather than punish. God only knows what stressful situation may have precipitated an individual’s action.
I believe these should only be on the register if they pertain in any way to the practice of medicine.
I am not in favour of publishing a MDs criminal code and health insurance act violations as well as bail conditions.
Physicians have a right to privacy as well. To publish such data will erode our right to privacy even more. If a physician is a threat to society, it is the CPSO’s duty to revoke that physicians’ licence. It is as simple as that.
If the matter is ALREADY public (i.e. Criminal Code order – bail, probation, etc) PATIENTS have an entitlement to this information. It would affect my choice as a patient. I agree CHARGES, ALLEGATIONS, or MATTERS UNDER APPEAL should be specified as well. I would also report the HISTORY of such activities (i.e. no expirey of this information).
Needless to say, I was horrified to see that the CPSO is considering posted this on the Public Register. I am concerned that issues which would not have any bearing on a patient’s care would ruin the physician’s reputation, and potentially subject their own family to harassment etc. The CPSO is becoming Big Brother. Just as patients do not have to disclose their criminal background etc, even if this might put the physician at risk, I do not see how this is information does anything to improve informed decisions, access to care etc.
With regards to criminal matters, I recommend that the College post only disciplinary findings related to criminal convictions. With regards to bail conditions, I recommend posting only conditions that could be relevant to work. This could, and should, be achieved by license restriction in accordance with bail conditions.
This proposal and many others within the transparency project are being added in the spirit of increasing the public trust in the profession, i.e. maintaining “self regulation”.
Various College officials often tout “self-regulation” as a privilege and best way to govern physicians. None of the officials though never specify who exactly this is a privilege for, nor do they specify why this is a privilege.
I think what they mean to say is that this system is great for the College itself, because it is definitely not for physicians.
Many things that physicians would never otherwise agree to, become rules by the College in the spirit of preserving this privilege. The College is always worried that media pressure will force the gov to remove self-regulation, hence it pretty much bows to every demand from them. So much for “self” regulation.
Here’s why self regulation is so bad for physicians: With regards to the onslaught of the additional restrictions that get piled on physicians every year, there is no recourse or independent body to complain to. If physicians complain to the gov or courts now, the answer is nothing or “It’s your own peers doing this. You are self-regulated. We have nothing to do with it”. So basically through self regulation the College gets to dominate physicians top down without any chance of review or objection since it’s regarded that we are doing it to ourselves, which is a complete untruth. The College has become its own entity, completely separate form Ontario physicians. It is interested only in its own survival and perpetuation.
Over 99.99% of physicians have nothing with running the College and the few that are elected to the Council might as well be appointed like the non-physician half who are gov-appointed. Most physicians either don’t vote or have no idea about the person they are voting for. So the College elections are meaningless and should not form the basis of the notion that Physicians are self-regulated. The College itself is self-regulated. Physicians are not.
There is only one way out of this debacle for an Ontario physician: leave this jurisdiction.
The CPSO extorts and blackmails its members who pay their dues without having any choice, because it’s a monopoly set up. Doctors are entitled to their privacy rights just like any other person. The regulations can stipulate measures on a scale from revoking license to requesting a suspension period together with any other requirements to “protect” the public, to requesting various forms and shapes of restricted practice. But be it clear, crime is contextual and it’s absurd to assume that a convicted offender will extend their dangerous behaviour to their own work environment. Who protects doctors from exposure to harassment by their patients and the daily risk of dealing with people with unknown criminal records. The college is practising draconian measures against its very own members, time to rethink Ontario
Sifting through all these comments makes one realize how draconian the CPSO has become. The pendulum has swung too far and this does not represent self-regulation. The CPSO is now a handy political tool in the hands of self serving interest groups esp. within the college itself. This can be easily inferred by the hypocrisy that surrounds it. Where is the transparency of the college itself? I challenge it to subject itself to a third party review in its own workings and expenditures. I can only blame the passivity of physicians as a whole that caused a malignant process as this current college to evolve.
I see this as a specific preemptive battle tactic against prescribing Cannabis Or Natural Therapies!
If not prove otherwise!
Read Part 2 also!
Basically this proposal like some of the other College proposals amounts to physicians rights vs patient rights. Every year more proposals like this come forward and usually it is the physicians’ rights that get eroded away inch by inch. As a physician, I could write how this is wrong or unfair on ideological grounds as many others have written here, however this never ending war is not being fought on ideological or fairness grounds. Physicians continually lose in this tug of war, on political grounds that have nothing to do with reason or fairness. There are much greater number of patients than there are physicians. Patients have a much greater voting power than do physicians. The politicians that write the laws and give the College its powers to regulate, will always side with the greater public vs. the few physicians, on purely political grounds.
In the end, there may only be a judicial solution to the issues of physician rights vs. patient rights, since every year more and more physician righs are eroded in the name of public safety. The courts may be the last option, though the matter won’t probably get there for several more years after things get really bad.
For those of us that remember it, the MRC and its demise serve as a good example of this. Things had to get really bad and there had to be physician martyrs for a change in physicians’ favor.
thank you for these excellent points.
these proposals are almost all political in nature. Every year they find newer ways to police and monitor doctors. How much is enough? Politicians get much more votes by “protecting the public” from physicians, than the other way around. The college is their puppet, and they pull its strings through legislation and threats of change in governance.
Do lawyers, dentists, pharmacists or nurses face the same mandatory disclosures? If not, then why physicians?
What about the general public? Can physicians can search a public register to find criminal code violations on their patients? If not, then this process is ridiculous and the CPSO should not discriminate any further against physicians, and put a swift end to this discourse.
I believe that these proposed actions would adversely affect public opinion in general about Ontario doctors. Physicians who have transgressed College guidelines are generally thoroughly investigated, their lives understandably turned upside down in the process as well as their family’s life, and pay the price for their transgressions, as should be the case. However, if a physician transgresses a criminal code, outside of the College’s guidelines, and is sentenced and serves his sentence or is pardoned, he should be treated similarly to any other citizen and not have this information posted publicly. Any patient can find this information by googling the physician’s name, and it does not necessarily indicate that the physician would be any less effective as a medical practitioner. I oppose the proposition.
Is there a provision for the case of a Criminal Record Suspension (Pardon)?
In that case will the notation be removed?
However, as Anonymous noted, once something has been posted to the internet it cannot be removed. Also, the Canadian Pardon is not sufficient to prevent entry into the USofA databases (where it can NEVER be removed).
If it is going forward with this proposal, the College must specify only Criminal Code Violations that affect or reflect upon the delivery of health care.
I am opposed to the proposal for the College to post information about Criminal Code and Health Insurance Act Offences, and Certain Bail Conditions.
The College has other means to protect the public.
With respect to the above item, I would like to encourage caution with the exposure of criminal and/or civil issues that do NOT have direct relevance to the practice of medicine. We must also respect the right of health care providers.
I am completely against the College proposing that the following information about members be included on the public register:
Criminal Code and Health Insurance Act Offences
Certain bail conditions ”
If a physician has already been vetted an cleared to practice by the CPSO then what is the CPSO doing by publishing offences on its website that have nothing to do with patient care? If the offences do have something to do with patient care they should have already been addressed by a professional society and readily accessible.
If a debt has been payed to society then rehabilitation/reintegration of the offending person is the next step.
By providing a resource which is easily accessible to informing regarding the physicians past history to patients, the patient-care relationship is being negatively affected. As well, the Internet is forever, all future economic endeavours, regardless if a pardon is thereafter granted will forever haunt the physician in question.
If it’s a matter of public safety, the college should’ve already addressed this with the tools at hand.
If it’s not a matter of safety or the college can’t safely protect the patients from physicians then why does the college even exist?
This is simple voyeurism into the private matters of a citizen. The information regarding convictions is already available to the public. Why does the college feel the need to expose the physician to further scrutiny regarding a (I would assume regretful incident) after clearing them to practice?
I understand that the college wants to be as transparent as possible but every individual deserves to have past transgressions be forgotten and move on with their daily lives without a “one click away” stigma that will forever affect how they can participate and deliver care to their patients.
Find a better way to be a more effective college in ensuring care and competency, protecting patients, an disciplining physicians.
If the college does proceed with this, I hope that they will also make available all of the criminal convictions etc. of all of their employees/contract workers/affiliates available to not only physicians but the general public as well, so that we can know who exactly is protecting us from physicians.
I think the CPSO is overreaching its limits with this proposal. This is a clear violation of the rights of doctors for quite uncertain and unproven “gains” for the patient. There is absolutely no proof that this measure will in any way help patients, yet will have only detrimental effects on physicians and their families in the community.
I also have serious concerns that this proposal actually violates the Ontario Human Rights Codes which states that all human beings in Ontario have a right to protected against discrimination in our jobs due to our “Record of Offenses”. In fact, according to my understanding of the code it is illegal to ask someone of their offenses for which they have been pardoned in the employment setting. Yet the CPSO thinks its OK to post this on the internet…
So do these proposals go to a vote of all members before they are enforced do will it just be forced through no matter what? God bless the CMPA.
Another example of violation of privacy.
Why only physicians…..let have all professional organizations adopt the same rules….including lawyers and judges in fact members of the Boards of Professional Organizations (CPSO included)….then at least it’s fair…..why not Members of Parliament?
I was having thought even before staring to write and looking at the comments below I am glad fully surprised I am not the only one concerned. The college can help and provide information for the Public to were to go if they want more information, and this kind of criminal information is available elsewhere. Internet/web access is a dangerous place and once you post something it will never go away. That means that even if a physician was at some time wrongfully accused of something and then after a long and expensive legal battle manages to get cleared there is no way the spread of an incomplete or premature web info will be. The CPSO seems to be overdoing its work in this transparency “Propaganda” Program. Instead o going out for any little bit of “dirty laundry” why we do not see the College working as hard in promoting good information about physicians like for example background training and abilities of FMG’s or other degrees and knowledge in related topics like Social Sciences, Ethics, Public Health, Administration, Philanthropy,Pedagogy, or even Anthropology, Technology or History or other sciences that will give the Public a good idea about the intellectual abilities and interests of the Physician.The Public needs to regain confidence in Physicians and our Healthcare system and highlighting the wrong information is certainly not going to do that.
please consider these 2 points:
1) Already you refer physicians with significant convictions to disciplinary. If you approve this proposal and post those convictions and bails that did not warrant referral to disciplinary, you will invite much more criticism and negative publicity from the media, as in “the CPSO knew about such and such convictions and did nothing about the doctors”. The line between those findings that merit referral to disciplinary and those that don’t is very blurry. Will the next step be to refer ALL convictions to disciplinary to appease the media and politicians?
2) Some Charges,bail conditions and perhaps convictions resulting from domestic disputes are not public information and not released by the police. If this proposal becomes approved, will you be including domestic and family-related matters on this site?
Do the other regulatory bodies in Alberta, BC, Manitoba, etc. mandate such information about their physician members?
This is debate over rights – the rights of patients to know about their doctor’s background and the doctor’s right to personal privacy. Some egregious acts such as sexual abuse put the patients at risk and patients have a right to fair warning before seeing such a physician, or the physician’s license should be revoked.
That being said, doctors are also human beings. They have the same right to privacy that all people do. The CPSO should involve itself only with doctor’s competency to practice medicine and not provide the means to hurt doctors for being human.
Why should doctors be isolated as the only group whose minor offenses (or merely unsubstantiated complaints) are made public. People depend on many professionals including teachers, plumbers, car mechanics, financial advisers, lawyers and politicians and many others. To make it fair there could be a government web site which listed information on all professionals, not just doctors. Does anyone want to let a plumber with a record of burglary into their home? How about trusting an attorney with convicted of criminal charges? Or perhaps a teacher with a DUI. The government can decide if the failings of all people in positions of trust should be made public. However, it should not be the role of the CPSO to regulate its own members except to ensure that they are competent and behave responsibly and appropriately in the patient-doctor relationship. CPSO should not be involved in regulating or reporting what happens outside that relationship unless it has a direct bearing on patient safety.
If a physician has already been vetted an cleared to practice by the CPSO then what is the CPSO doing by publishing offences on its website that have nothing to do with patient care? If the offences do have something to do with patient care they should have already been addressed by a professional society and readily accessible.
I understand that the college wants to be as transparent as possible but every individual deserves to have past transgressions be forgotten and move on with their daily lives without a “one click away” stigma that will forever affect how they can participate and deliver care to their patients.
Find a better way to be a more effective college in ensuring care and competency, protecting patients, an disciplining physicians.
I fully agree with the above If convicted for a criminal act the knowledge should be public and a patient has the right to know who they chose as a physician
Having a MD behind our name doesn’t mean our entire life story need to be published. We also have right to have privacy , security. Looks
like college motto is penalize physicians for everything. Very disappointed.
This proposal does not add to patient care in any way. I will not repeat the same points already made by so many, nor can I take the time to read all of them so I apologize if someone has already noted this – what happens if something gets posted and 100′s, or 1000′s even of patients then decide they no longer wish to see that physician? Is the CPSO going to provide them with a new doctor? What if it is a specialist? What if it is in a small town? Who pays for the lost income? Moving expenses? Inability to get a new job? Aren’t we entitled to the same rights or privacy as everyone else in the population?
I am hoping the CPSO would think twice about publishing bails under certain conditions. My understanding is that the the physician would not have been convicted of anything and no trial has even begun on his/her charges. To me, to publish publicly an unconvicted charge/crime is not fair to the relevant physician in question.
Slogans such as “more transparency, more accountability”, “patient centred care”, etc. are political boondoggles the College and its real bosses (the Gov and MOH) use to tell voters that their interests are above those of physicians. They like voters to know that that they have tamed doctors as servants of society that must give unconditional servitude to patients, who are talked about at the College and similar circles as divine beings who could do no wrong or bear any responsibility for anything.
One would be amazed if the College actually cited one iota of evidence that “more transparency” of “physician specific” information (euphemism for: personal information) leads to more “accountability”. Does providing patients personal information about physicians, reduce chance of medical errors, save lives, money, etc? if so, show the evidence.
I don’t think most physicians are really opposed to excluding those with criminal tendencies from the profession, however it is the next steps of the so-called “transparency project” that are the real travesty. Thus this project should be stopped at this stage, before going on to the next step of making cautions, educational requirements and eventually all complaints stuck onto this website. The day that comes, I for one will leave this profession, for that will not be the College just playing politics anymore, but sheer tyranny.
The overwhelming majority of physicians are too caught up in work and family life. Many are essentially illiterate when it comes to understanding the political and regulatory aspects of their lives, until they get slapped with a complaint or two and then realize what has been done to them. Perhaps this is why on some level we as a profession deserve it as such.
If patients can choose the physicians based on their personal information, then it should be fair for physicians to choose to treat or not treat based on the personal history of the patient, which I do not think any physician will do. We have to be fair and respect the privacy of physicians the same way we respect the privacy of our patients. I do not see any benefit on adding these information except responding to some pressure from some reporters. Physicians are respectful people, they work very hard, they are monitored by lots of regulatory bodies, they should be protected from such abusive propaganda instead of posting more of their personal information to the public.
The ‘transparency project’ has all of the makings of a modern day ‘witch-hunt’ led by the Toronto Star and followed by the usual knee-jerk reaction of the provincial government and CPSO.
The raison d’etre of the CPSO is the CPSO itself. But the real reason why the rights of physicians keep being washed away under the ‘guise’ of protecting the public is the apathy of the profession itself and the lack of any significant action/response by the Ontario Medical Association to protect it’s members. It is time to go after the CPSO and the government for these rights transgressions. The OMA should take it to the courts and at least it will give the CPSO and government pause before it ruthlessly attacks the profession whenever it suits them.
OMA is the association picked by the government for us to use on a mandatory basis. One would not expect more from an organization like that.
With every decade, more and more rights are taken from physicians. These include the right to free assembly (OMA is forced on us), the right to job action, the right to unionize, the right to offer medical care privately, the right to terminate abusive patients, and so on. Next is the right to one’s privacy and due process. The next step of the “transparency project” basically does away with due process by making all complaints or advice for physicians into public judgements without a process of defense and hearings.
Thanks to the apathy of physicians and the incompetence of the OMA, we are defenseless sitting ducks. The CPSO MOH, and Queen’s park will play politics with our lives as they see fit to suit their self-serving agendas.
why does society want to regulate the world out of physicians, yet let so many other professions run loose. Where is the Toronto Star to report on those things?
How come contractors and repairmen don’t need a criminal check or any regulation at all? They enter people’s homes freely and are in contact with people’s property and vulnerable family members.
Why do they allow unlicensed nannies, and daycare places to operate with workers who could be criminals in charge of people’s precious kids?
how come they allow unlicensed facilities and technicians use powerful laser to people’s skin in hair and tattoo removal. So many people end up with burns, and adverse outcomes in such facilities. why is there accountability only when the technician applying the laser is physician? There are other jurisdictions that consider the application of laser to skin a medical procedure hence rightfully barring such unlicensed clinics and technicians.
There are many examples of how these things lead to adverse outcomes and yet absolutely no level of regulation is applied, yet
Ontario over-regulates some people far too much, and yet offer absolutely no regulatory oversight to many others.
This is the double-standards province.
I don’t see how the public is protected from publishing any convictions of OHIP fraud.
This is a financial matter and for those cases that are marginal, it will destroy careers.
Current measures are adequate.
There should be, notionally, no issue with publishing information that is true, and in the public domain already. However, two issues make this problematic:
Firstly, the aggregation of that information on the CPSO website wold presumably be used for the purpose of choosing whether or not to begin or continue a professional relationship with that physician. It therefore affects their ability to earn a living. And the information presented is without detail or context. In short, it is clearly prejudicial to the physician in question. Not because it isn’t true, but in part because of the forum and the manner in which it is presented. No other professions, even ones with Colleges such as Teachers, would allow similar information to be publicly summarized and presented.
Second, in that this information is likely to be used by patients to decide about seeing certain doctors, it affects their ability to make a living. Many decisions by the CPSO have the motive of remediating, educating, or retraining providers who fall below benchmarks. Presumably, once the remediation has taken place, and the CPSO is satisfied, the deficiencies NO LONGER EXIST. To have a summaries of these findings is not only prejudicial, but misleading .
I fail to see what point there is placing these items on the public register. Surely, if the offence is of such severity that jail time is involved, that physician would likely have lost their licence. There has been little or no support for this policy from what I have scanned from this thread. Is some minor misdemeanor going to haunt physicians indefinitely on the CPSO web-site forever? I truly wonder about the CPSO’s foresight.
Correct me if I’m wrong; it is my understanding that all regulated health care professionals are required to self report to their respective colleges if they have been found guilty of any criminal activity. Understandably, the CPSO has this information. If the CPSO is regulating its members in the Public interest (as mandated); then it is up to the CPSO to appropriately address the matter to ensure the safety of the Public. If this means posting the details on the college website to allow the Public to make informed choices than thats what needs to be done. Furthermore, insurance fraud is criminal activity and dishonest. I for one would want to know if a physician is dishonest. The CPSO needs to “lift the veil of secrecy” and be seen to be transparently regulating its members in the Public interest.
I don’t know what you do for a living. But if you are the member of any profession, be it teacher, lawyer, plumber, accountant, etc. You must be required to have the same information posted on the worldwide web about you as you would like about any physician. After all, if I am going to be using your services, it would be important to me too to know in making my “informed decision”. For example, I would want to know if an accountant has cheated a client before and been convicted, if a plumber stole something from a customer’s home, or a daycare worker slapped someone’s kid. As they say what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. This must not become a one-way street.
First, I agree doctors who commit fraud should lose their license.
However, I only would find it fair to list all criminal charges a doctor has had, if the same were done for every Canadian citizen! even pardoned ones, including yourself!!!
Many members of the public who have had a bad experience with a doctor are using this as way to get back or humiliate them, or to make up for their perceived inadequacies. Doctors are human and just like anyone else and should be treated that way. I want equal treatment for all members of society, or else this is discrimination.
With the suggestion of this proposal the CPSO has forever disgraced themselves and tarnished their image in the eyes of physicians. The college has absolutely NO RIGHT to disclose any criminal acts that do not affect patient care, if there was a crime that affects patient care then the doctor should not be licensed to work as a physician. No where in Canada can i find out about the criminal records of any of my patients, as they are protected even for the greatest of crimes (ie rape/murder), furthermore they are even given the opportunity for clearing of their criminal record. What the college is doing is wrong and discriminatory. I am shamed that I am a member of the CPSO today. The public shaming of doctors has to end, when are doctors treated worse that the people they help.
In its desire to seek a utopia of perfect doctor and please societies agenda for tarnishing reputable doctors, the CPSO has stooped so low now, showing it will stop at nothing to further tarnish and humuliate doctors.
When the CPSO can do things above and beyond what society is permitted to do, I have a huge issue with that. I was not even allowed to find out about the prior extensive history of someone who was stalking me, until a police offer accidently released this information (and it was serious ie. rape, assault, previous stalkings). The machinery of the CPSO has to be addressed, it is not preventing bad doctors from hurting patients, because its focusing their attention on too many frivolous complaints. As a member of the public, if police records are released to destroy the lives of doctors, you will see more suicides among them, and I hope a human rights lawsuit against the CPSO for discrimination. You will always find people who want to destroy those they percieve as superior to them, and the college is finding a great way to help them even more than they do already.
Whats next CPSO, list doctors weights, their medical school grades and evaluations, whats next. The CPSO is out of control, and nobody will stop them.
This is a complete witch hunt. CPSO cannot be allowed to be above and beyond the laws of society.
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance ReformFAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education.
Last year Ontario’s motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims made over 89,000 visits to private medical clinics, assessment centers and private offices for third party medical assessments and treatments.
Injured MVA victims are legislated by Ontario’s government to attend these facilities for third party medical opinion examinations or treatments arranged by Ontario’s auto insurers. The examinations, and the reports and testimony that result from them, are too often highly partisan or of very poor quality. These reports are used to decide access to benefits including treatment and rehabilitation and should be of the highest possible standards when a person’s well being and recovery depend on them. Instead, MVA victims are put at risk and are without adequate protection from often very shady business operators and a system without transparency that suffers from poor regulations, a lack of oversight and virtually no enforcement.
Too often, the medico-legal reports of for-hire medical opinion vendors interferes with treatments prescribed by a patient’s own physicians or treatment providers. These reports, which are often given no weight at court hearings many years down the road, are harming patients by standing in the way of timely recovery and blocking access to necessary treatments. The lack of information available to the public about these assessors and the businesses they work for (often called assessment mills) is enabling the third party medical opinion vendors, hired by Ontario’s insurance companies to minimize costs, to harm MVA victims for their own financial gain. Many of these MVA survivors are vulnerable and/or cognitively impaired and the harm done is often irrevocable when delayed treatment means one might never fully achieve maximum recovery. Nothing is being done to preserve and protect the covenant ‘do no harm’ and it has caused a genuine lack of public faith in CPSO’s (and other Ontario regulatory colleges) ability to regulate.
All patients without information about their medical service providers are vulnerable but auto accident victims are also being harmed by Ontario’s abusive auto insurance scheme that depends on the dishonest medical practitioners in the system. The bullying of victims and deflating of a person’s injury is made possible by the insurer’s preferred medical opinion providers and then by their continued ability to use the CPSO lack of transparency and secret cautions as a way to avoid accountability or exposure. This must come to an end and MVA victims and all patients should be protected from those who are working against patient wellness and recovery, against treating physicians who are honestly trying to help their patients and whose disreputable actions are ultimately harming the reputation of all physicians.
We support greater transparency.
I am not really sure what this has to do with the topic, my guess is only what is discussed below.
So you don’t like the content of the independent medical evaluations (IMEs), and you can’t complain to the College about their content because they are supposed to be “independent” in nature. One in your shoes would always wish for IMEs that favor the accident “victim” getting more benefits from insurance companies. So I guess having dirt on a doctor, you think would help you to discredit the reviewer in court. You should however know that the number of doctors who have a criminal record or bail and are sill practicing is probably very very low, so in the end this would not help you.
Obviously you don’t like the idea of an IME, and you wish that insurance companies paid up to the fullest every time someone got rear-bumped, no matter how slightly. As much as I can see your anger in this regard, I cannot see much relevance between your issue and the topic open for consultation here.
Can I get a criminal record of people who want to be my patients before I take them on?
Why are lawyers and other professionals regulatory bodies not revealing this very private information only the CPSO?
Professional Association of Residents of OntarioResponse in PDF Format.
I am not in favor of the proposed amendment as drafted.
I think the ultimate question here is whether the physician is safe and responsible to practice medicine. I would favor the creation of a committee, distinct from the Discipline Committee, whose charge it would be to investigate whether the reported offense impairs the physician’s practice of medicine. For example, if the physician is guilty of driving under the influence, then a committee review may suggest random alcohol surveillance testing of the physician. If the testing is positive, then that becomes an issue for the Discipline Committee. If the testing is negative, then the physician is a safe practitioner (from the perspective of the reported offense) and the public has no need to know about the report. If the physician is guilty of an offense under the Health Insurance Act – e.g. fraudulent billing – that can be investigated, and in most cases curtailed, to ensure that the health and care of the public is not impacted by the physician’s behavior, without need for public dissemination.
There is a fine line between transparency and eroding the public’s trust in the medical profession. What do patients need to know about their physician? They need to be assured that their physician is safe and fit to practice good medicine — That can be accomplished without a prejudicial posting on a public register. There are other ways to protect the public. The College’s goal should be to screen, investigate, and when needed discipline. It is that process that needs to be communicated to the public, such that the public knows that surveillance processes are in place and are being carried out in a diligent and trustworthy fashion. The goal should be for the public to have good reason to trust and have confidence in the care they receive from their physician.
1. no posting be made until the time limit for filing an appeal has passed.
2. if an appeal has been filed, no posting be made on a public register until after the appeal has been adjudicated.
RE: Special considerations of information subject to a publication ban.
Under the proposed bylaw amendment 51. (1) and 50.1 (1), I have concern that “provision for information that if made public would violate a publication ban” could unfairly create two groups of physicians treated differently with respect to listing on the public register — those who because of a publication ban are not listed and those, with the exact same offense, who are listed because for whatever (non-medically related) reason, they lack the protection of a publication ban.
Further, it is possible that some offenses may be more likely to attach publication bans. It is even possible that more egregious offenses may be more likely to be accompanied by a publication ban. If this were the case, those with more serious offenses may be protected from publication on the public registry, while others with lesser offenses could be listed.
I am not in favor of this amendment as drafted.
College of Medical Laboratory Technologists of OntarioResponse in PDF format.