Organization
[February 13, 2024 3:29 PM]
Ontario Medical Association (OMA)
 
Response in PDF format:
OMA Response_20240213.pdf
Physician (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 11:16 PM]
On treatment of family members and self:

I believe that given the severe shortage of family physicians that the policy around treating family members and ourselves should be relaxed for the next 5 years then reviewed. Perhaps by then we and our family members will again have our own family physicians or nurse practitioners who will be able to respond in a timely manner
Physician (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 11:58 AM]
I agree that physicians must not prescribe or administer the drugs or substances set out in provision 15. This Policy is out of touch with reality, not objective, nor realistic, and could be harmful to physician and their family and many others. This policy ask the physicians to abandon and prevent them from helping those whom they care about the most after our broken healthcare system abandoned us all. I never met a physician who agree with this policy. This policy should be compatible with our health care reality in 2024 with millions of people including physicians have no health care providers.
Physician (including retired)
[February 11, 2024 7:29 PM]
I agree with many of the concerns raised in the previous comments. While problems can certainly arise when treating family/friends/colleagues, a policy that amounts to a blanket prohibition is unworkable, and the current guidelines seem overly restrictive and/or unclear. As others have pointed out, the definitions of 'minor' and 'emergency' are not easy to delineate, and the requirement that there be no other 'readily available' (again, hard to define) physician is unwieldy and seems unnecessary in the case of some minor issues. In the current human resource climate, even a person's own family physician is not necessarily 'readily available', and far too many Ontarians (including family members of mine) cannot get a family physician at all. It would be helpful if physicians could at least make referrals, renew longstanding stable (non-controlled) prescriptions, etc. on behalf of a close contact who has no primary care physician, especially given that for many issues and in many locations, ERs and walk-in clinics may not be accessible, timely or suitable. There are also all the complexities related to small/rural communities, where social and professional roles commonly overlap. (Much could be learned from clinicians working in those communities, who have had to navigate the boundary issues related to this overlap throughout their careers.) The policy also feels excessively punitive, given the powers wielded by the College (e.g. if providing a referral for or treating a spouse is deemed by someone to fall outside the College's interpretation of 'minor' or 'ready availability of another provider', we could be charged with 'sexual abuse of a patient' because the person we treated/referred is our partner???)

On the other hand, we do know that there can be (a) pressure applied to physicians to treat people they may not be comfortable treating, (b) people who take undue advantage of access to a physician within their family/social group, and (c) various factors impacting clinical judgement (along with excessive self-blame if something goes wrong). We also know that continuity of care and communication among treating clinicians is essential, something that may be missed when more 'informal' care is provided.

It would make sense to update this policy and provide a more educational framework & stance, reserving punitive measures for only those who truly show negligence or malevolence. It would be most helpful to have educational modules addressing the nuances of treating those with whom we have overlapping social relationships, so that in fact we become more skilled and discerning in our navigation of this landscape... alerting physicians to the potential pitfalls, while loosening restrictions to a degree that allows common sense to prevail. Providing clear examples of situations that represent quite reasonable use of our medical skills & knowledge to help those connected to us, vs. situations where such involvement would be unsuitable, would be helpful (AS LONG AS these are informed by broad consultation and 'real-world' experience). Some sort of guidelines based on these might provide physicians adequate reference to be able to gracefully decline inappropriate (or uncomfortable) requests for services. It would also be important to be very clear as to what constitutes an actual 'doctor-patient relationship', whether/when to bill for services, and whether/when/how to document more informal interactions (e.g. the common scenario of a family member or friend asking for some general medical advice or to look at a concerning skin lesion, etc...). We don't need more bureaucracy and formalization of ALL interactions, but some guidance around how/when to document when any specific treatment or advice is given (even if not billable) might be helpful, as well as encouragement to communicate any such treatment/advice to the person's primary physician or other pertinent provider (again, if they should be so lucky as to have one!) for continuity.

[One caution: given the dire state of the primary care system in particular, we need to ensure that if physicians are allowed to provide some minor services ('pro bono') to themselves and family members, that this does not end up shifting the burden of care that should be provided within a robust and healthy team-based primary care system onto the backs of already over-burdened physicians.]

'Right touch' regulation sounds good in theory; in this case it would seem the College has not yet found the right touch, and hopefully revisions to this policy will allow for appropriate protections for both physicians and the public, while easing (rather than adding to) burden on both.
Organization
[February 09, 2024 11:08 AM]
Professional Association of Residents of Ontario (PARO)
 
Response in PDF format:
PARO Response_20240209_Redacted.pdf
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 12:54 AM]
I know many nurses that left the bedside to become injectors and inject their partners, besties and sibs to become their best most beautiful and confident selves. It Literally took me like 5 mins of Instagram searching to find that with my mutuals. But wait, the CNO agrees and wants to hold ME to a higher standard? I think there’s a conflict of interest there tbh - so their members can gain financial incentive and edge out doctors in the beauty and injection industry.

If we are teammates in health care, then put your own members as well to this ‘well articulated standard.’

I think the CPSO sees the world as black and white whereas it’s literally shades of grey.
Organization
[February 07, 2024 10:41 AM]
College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO)
 
Good Morning,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the following four policies: Consent to Treatment, Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members, or Others Close to Them, Principles of Medical Professionalism and Professional Behaviour.
Overall, we found these documents articulate important expectations to the profession. We found the policies to be relevant and concise. Also, we found the companion resources to be particularly helpful when looking for more information to support the expectations.
We have attached a document that highlights a few considerations that may support your update of these resources.
Please feel free to reach out to me directly should you have any questions or require any clarification.
 
Response in PDF format:
CNO_Response_20240207.pdf
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 12:08 PM]
I know many couples who are nurses who treat and inject Botox and fillers and prp for their romantic partners, friends family members. But it’s nice to know where you stand as an organization. I’ll be sure to look into this!
Physician (including retired)
[February 04, 2024 9:23 PM]
I think the College should ignore the near-unanimous feedback, ignore the realities of most doctor's lives, contribute to further burn-out among MDs, then deliver the same anachronistic policy as always and pocket a healthy paycheck.
Prefer not to say
[February 03, 2024 9:12 PM]
Having lived in a rural, northern community we worked with and socialized with the medical staff. If they could not treat us, then we would not have had medical care. There needs to be sensitivity to the lack of physicians in such settings and the need to understand that I found them always to be objective. It is like a teacher who has to teacher their child. It is not ideal but in rural areas in our province, it happens. There should be some understanding to the realities.
Physician (including retired)
[February 02, 2024 1:27 PM]
So, you’d rather I go to the random lady in the 5 med spas by my house the probably operates as a spouse, or the nurse who took a weekend course, to get my filler and Botox than my best friend who is also a dermatologist? Do you have a stake in these med spas or something? Are the people who came up with this policy related to ‘esthetiticians’ ?
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 5:22 PM]
Could be a little more focussed on what is a minor issues to major issues.  A list would be helpful With great difficulty in getting into Family Doctors offices some issues seem minor but ..
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 7:32 PM]
I hope anyone previously or currently employer at the CPSO never ask your doctor neighbour, friend, brother in law to look at your mole, their opinion, a favour, a free note, a free form, literally nothing. And I hope no one there complains that the ER wait times are 8 hours for a fever, and that it takes 3 weeks to book in for your acne or painful periods, or trouble peeing, bloated belly at your family doc if your lucky to have one
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 7:29 PM]
No problemo, I’ll get my nom romantic partner family member of varying ages to go to the ER for their wheezing, cellulitis, stitch removal, so they can get mrsa and pay $100 in parking since they’re chronically understaffed. No prob
Physician (including retired)
[January 21, 2024 1:01 PM]
The policy needs to be revised. - Physicians should be allowed to treat their family/close relations for any/all conditions a pharmacist can now treat (and should more conditions be allowed to be treated by pharmacists, similarly physicians should be able to treat those too). - Physicians should be allowed to administer immunizations and administer allergy shots to family/close relations as they are often delegated acts able to be performed by a nurse or pharmacist. - Revise and provide clarification on the statement “For a minor condition, or in emergency situations; and When another qualified health-care professional is not readily available.” - What does readily available mean? The ER is always an option. There are urgent care clinics with after hour availability. Walk-in clinics are available. Is this in terms of time or distance- and what specific definitions exist that make something readily available? Having to drive/take transit/transportation 30+ mins to access care is not “readily available”. - What does an emergency mean? Is this only an acute limb or life threatening condition? How about urgent situations, not limb or life threatening? - How about a condition, that’s more than a minor condition but not emergent right now, that could become an emergency if not treated promptly? - For conditions that we now allow pharmacists to treat, physicians should be allowed to similarly treat their family/close relations even if the patient hypothetically could present to care elsewhere. I believe the policy should state that for those conditions, physicians can treat family/close relations, even if the patient has a family physician. A realistic scenario to illustrate some of the issues with the policy. Let’s say a family member has mild flu like symptoms and later tests positive for COVID on a Friday night, day 5 of symptoms. The family member meets criteria for Paxlovid. They see a pharmacist that same Friday night who declines to prescribe Paxlovid (medical complexity, concerns about managing drug interactions). What should we do? This is a high-risk situation. This is not a minor condition. This is not yet an emergency- the patient has no red flag symptoms, vitals stable, normal physical exam, able to maintain oral intake. - Prescribe Paxlovid, including managing drug interactions (counsel patient about drug management) and have patient urgently follow up with their family doctor - Send the patient to the ER - Do nothing. As of tomorrow the patient is outside the Paxlovid eligibility window. Hope they can access their family physician within the next two days (unlikely, it’s the weekend) and perhaps qualify for Remdesivir.
Physician (including retired)
[January 20, 2024 3:37 PM]
Congratulations, CPSO, on focusing on an issue that is not an issue. If an MD diagnoses a UTI on their elderly grandmother, and prescribes Macrobid, how is it going to negatively affect the public? You would rather want the granny to go to ER, have her wait 12 hrs in the busy ER waiting room, delay ATBx therapy by 12 hrs by which time this old and frail lady is in a much worse shape? She could have been dealt with immediately by a family member, without unnecessarily clogging up the failing healthcare system. Why don't you spend more energy fighting with the government(s) that are the only responsible entity for the major healthcare failure. Treating a family member for minor issues actually helps unclogging the system.
Medical student
[January 18, 2024 12:12 AM]
While I acknowledge the well-intentioned nature of this policy, I find myself facing uncertainty regarding its implementation upon my return to my Indigenous community. As an Indigenous medical student, I am acutely aware of the imperative to bolster the presence of Indigenous physicians in Canada, aligning with the demographics of the Indigenous population. It is evident from statistical data that Indigenous patients often express a preference for Indigenous healthcare providers. Given this context, I am interested in understanding how this policy will be applied within a small reservation community characterized by interconnected familial relationships. It's essential to note that appointing another physician, especially an Indigenous one, would not be feasible in this particular community.
Prefer not to say
[January 17, 2024 2:37 PM]
This is a shaming exercise for any physician who dares circumvent the sluggish and mismanaged government-proscribed health care access pipeline.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 1:38 AM]
What I think this policy needs to include is what happens when an Indigenous physician works in their own community? This is a practice/pathway that is often idealized and pushed for, for native doctors to "return to their home community" / reserve or treaty area they are in. Everyone is my relative and is my cousin. To what end do we say we can treat family when you are related to the entire population you serve and being from the community is actually a strength to your practice and not a bias
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 9:27 PM]
The punishments meted down to surgeons who have treated their spouse/partner often seems disproportionately harsh. I don't see how taking away a physician's licence for treating a spouse for a minor condition is appropriate. Furthermore, I do not think a typical member of the general public would think this policy actually protects patients. It is unfair to administer the same punishment to a physician who gives medical treatment to their spouse/partner as a physician who sexually abuses a non-consenting patient. When reading through Dialogue over the years I've seen several judgements that were harsh and inappropriate, in my opinion.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 6:13 PM]
I suggest that the CPSO publish a review of decisions related to this topic - analyzing if this policy is truly "protecting the public" or is being used to "punish the MD". From my recollection of reading Dialogue, all adverse CPSO decisions on this topic did not demonstrate any clinical incompetence. Adverse CPSO decisions were based solely on on a contravention of this policy - almost always brought by a "strained non medical situation" to punish the MD / to teach the MD a lesson. The CPSO being used as a pawn to punish the MD. The CPSO needs to stop this misuse / abuse of the system. The policy is written in a style meant to be "punitive" to physicians. It does NOT have the "right touch" approach. This needs to be a guidance document, with clear guidance on when NOT to treat. In the absence of clinical incompetence (the purpose of this policy) or fraud I suggest that the policy be re-written so that the MD is not sanctioned.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 10:22 PM]
I think trying to keep unnecessary issues out of ER should trump punishing a doctor for an appropriate prescription. I think if a pharmacist is able to prescribe for things, a doctor should be able to in a pinch. I agree with others with not billing OHIP to avoid misuse. Is prescribing an antibiotic for a spouse with classic UTI symptoms on a Sunday hurting anyone? That spouse clogging up the ER or walk in clinics serving the growing number of unattached patients seems like it is more harmful to the public.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 3:01 PM]
As a radiologist, but former GP, I have no idea from the current guidelines from the CPSO as to if and what I can prescribe to myself, close family members and close friends. I do get called occasionally after hours and weekends when there is no GP available. The main clinical scenario is whether or not there is pneumonia. I still have a stethoscope, BP cuff and pulse oximeter. I have done respiratory physical examinations on some of these individuals and strongly suspected pneumonia. I have unfortunately had to tell them to go to ER and wait countless hours. Yet I can't order a Chest X-ray or prescribe antibiotics, or can I? I believe I can still diagnose pneumonia. Obviously, I would not bill OHIP and strongly recommend follow-up the individuals family Doctor (if they have one). Please advise.
Physician (including retired)
[February 02, 2024 7:12 PM]
I have similar situation and I also think that we can treat some illnesses on situational bases. In today's world of scarce access to a physician, communication to Family Physician-MRP should be on the family-friend patient who received a minor or emergent therapy (obviously with instruction to do so), not on a "family member" MD who provided it without billing the OHIP.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 2:24 PM]
This policy needs to be revised to accommodate the current realities.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 2:23 PM]
Every time this policy is up for review, the overwhelming response from Members is to loosen the policy. There has to be some flexibility here, particularly as there is a severe physician shortage which is only going to get worse as boomers retire. This problem was recently declared an emergency. It becomes a safety issue, and telling friends and family members to go to the ER where they can face waiting times > 24 hours is not an option. Despite the overwhelming feedback, the College has not loosened the policy. This brings into question whether we truly are a self-governing profession. The governance model of the CPSO may be faulty. To be clear, I am not advocating doing psychiatry, major surgery or narcotics prescribing to friends and family, just dealing with care access issues expediently.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 1:18 PM]
The lack of flexibility and harsh language doesn’t seem flexible and in touch with current times where ER wait times, specialist wait times, family doctors availability. But perhaps it will take poor outcomes for flexibility.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 1:15 PM]
What actually are we updating?
Given the shortage of MDs, is this really protecting the public - I would expect this to further limit care in rural areas/
How much of a problem is this really - I would want some data, otherwise, is there not better places to spend our money?
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 1:14 PM]
I think the college could to take nuances amd the climate of 2024. There should be modifications to when we would be allowed to treat family members. As a physician, I can be a skilled injector of Botox, dysport fillers etc I would trust myself over a random ‘nurse’ who did a weekend course and does injections as a side hustle. I should be able to provide topical retinoids- the pharmacist can do it. Things that shouldn’t occur are no third party benefits (notes for benefits/sick notes/disability) and never any restricted substances, or chronic long term medical conditions. I should be able to provide this service without billing OHIP to people I know vs telling people to go to the random 10 beauty med spas in the 2 mile radius.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 12:46 PM]
I would echo the sentiment that any delegated treatment (eg. Botox) or pharmacist treatable condition should be excluded from these guidelines. It seems bonkers that one could not treat their family member or close friend, by a non-expert could.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 12:10 PM]
The current policy is fine. I would argue that we should lessen the requirement for “readily available physician alternate”. If the treatment is minor seeking care from another physician takes an appointment spot away from another individual. And in this time of family physician shortage we should try to limit the unnecessary usage of the system, especially since the physician is not going to bill Ohip which also saves tax payer dollars.
Physician (including retired)
[January 07, 2024 2:51 PM]
The current CPSO policy could be modified as there must be room to improve with the current lifestyle. I think physicians should be able to treat family members as outlined with the criteria in current CPSO policy. However, physicians are fearful of doing this due to potential repercussions from CPSO.

I believe if physicians treats family, it should follow current CPSO criteria. In addition, must not bill OHIP to deter repeated uses, notify the family doctor (if they have one), notify the family member to avoid this method repeatedly and inform the family member about College policy and your obligation as a physician to follow this policy.

I think the key thing is to inform the family member that this cannot be on an ongoing basis and they must follow up with their family doctor and assist them to find if they don't have one.
Physician (including retired)
[January 07, 2024 1:57 PM]
This policy is profoundly in need of some 'right touch' amendments.
Any condition which can be treated by a pharmacist should be treatable by a 'close to' physician.
Cosmetic injections (botox, filler) may be performed by lay persons (not even a nurse) as a Delegated act under the supervision of an MD. If the College believes this supervision is meaningful it is willfully naive. How can the College accept this but object to an MD injecting his partner with Botox??
The subjectivity of this current policy is so great that I believe any doctor in the province could be found in violation. The College could be weaponized to investigate any one of us, with potentially severe consequences.
If these issues are of such great importance to the College, perhaps MDs could include a summary of the past year's 'close to' interventions with their annual renewal, and if there are concerns in an MDs conduct an educational session would be appropriate.
Physician (including retired)
[December 31, 2023 8:59 AM]
This policy has always been a joke for rural docs. It is completely impossible not to develop relationships, including friendships with patients in a small town. You will either have no social life or no patients. There needs to be some accomodation for geography, otherwise this policy just gets ignored, or worse, contributes significantly to docs avoiding rural jobs. This is particularly difficult for single docs.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 2:27 PM]
This is a very important issue which has always been ignored. It may be part of the reason we have so many under serviced rural and semi-rural areas.
Physician (including retired)
[December 16, 2023 10:51 PM]
I agree with the intent of the policy. I am concerned about the vagueness of the following term:

"When another qualified health-care professional is not readily available." Specifically the word "readily". Minor illnesses ie acute UTI in a patient with a history of recurrent UTI. While not emergent in the true sense of the word it is painful to wait 24 or 48 hours for a response.

I think it important to leave the physician with flexibilty to make decisions on what is emergent and what defines "not readily available"
Physician (including retired)
[January 05, 2024 8:54 AM]
In regards to the respondent who queried the challenge of ignoring a family member with a painful diagnosis such as a UTI, tongue in cheek, you can always go see your friendly neighborhood pharmacist who doesn’t possess nearly the ability of that physician in question to diagnose and treat that condition. I have been in such a situation before the days of pharmacists prescribing, with a wife’s painful UTI and my prescription was declined by the pharmacist. We have to be reasonable. That’s the word that is missing here. Pharmacists read our CPSO guidelines too. Some take them to the nth degree. Reasonable please.
Physician (including retired)
[December 15, 2023 10:20 AM]
When my child was being treated by his pediatrician for asthma and prescribed pediapred for exacerbations, I knew that I had to do something, so I asked for a referral to a pediatric allergist. When the pediatrician refused, I jumped over him and referred my son to the allergist who diagnosed a severe peanut allergy. I also suggested to the allergist to prescribe Singulair as a way to reduce the need for prednisone.
That was almost 20 years ago, now my son is enrolled in  an Ontario medical school.
Physician (including retired)
[December 13, 2023 4:31 PM]
The pandemic has worsened capacity constraints in health care and offers an opportunity to revisit long held beliefs that constrain available efficiencies.

I support some restrictions on physician treatment of self and others who have a significant nonprofessional relationship with the physician. In particular I agree with the list of absolutely prohibited medication classes in the policy. The actual primary care doctor should be the one ordering consultations, starting new long-term medications and supervising routine health maintenance.

However, ordering diagnostic studies for acute problems, renewing chronic prescriptions and reviewing lab results for oneself and others is not cognitively challenging, does not strain the health care system and clearly reduces use of the actual primary doctor’s valuable time.

While the existing policy assumes such care is at risk of compromising objective judgement and thus quality of care and/or conflicts with principles of equity, I do not see either as self evident. In fact, the highest compliment patients pay physicians is that they feel as well treated as the doctor’s own family. How many patients weighing my recommendations have asked me what decision I would make for my own family member?

In summary, I favour a liberal policy allowing physicians to treat self and family members with clear “bright line” rules prohibiting conduct with the slightest chance of abuse.
Physician (including retired)
[December 13, 2023 11:27 AM]
With the long waits for specialists, it may not be unreasonable to care for relatives in your subspecialty. An example - a psychiatric or paediatrician should be allowed to start ADHD therapy otherwise the child will deteriorate further, or therapy for strep throat by a parent to their child cannot harm and had no ethical dilemmas.
Physician (including retired)
[December 13, 2023 10:26 AM]
perhaps to clarify if referring a close family member or partner for a consultation would be considered as "treating" them. i feel like there was a case recently where someone referred their sexual partner (in the context of other issues) for a consultation, and that was listed as one of the problems. with the severe shortages of family physicians, as a physician and you are aware that a consultation with a specialist is required, referring them to a specialist should perhaps be preferred? and also reduces the temptation to treat them yourself?
Physician (including retired)
[December 13, 2023 10:25 PM]
I agree with many of the comments reported by the physician.

Referring a family member to another appropriate physician based on the symptoms reported by family /friend would save time and resources of the emergency room and walk in clinics.

all the discussion with the family member/ friend should be appropriately documented in the medical chart and a referral is arranged. It should not be considered a problem. Hence CPSO must clarify this, so that physicians were well intentioned Do not get in trouble.

To deter the abuse of this, CPSO can suggest that they should not be billed to OHIP or reimbursed.

Due to extreme shortage of physicians, in the province, and providing short-term time-limited well documented medical care to a family member, or a friend should not create issues.

In my opinion, if a physician providing this kind of care, should also copy on letter the family physician of the person they provided care to stay transparent.
Physician (including retired)
[December 12, 2023 6:57 PM]
I don't think that this policy is very clear or reasonable. Given the shortage of family physicians there is more of an expectation for physicians who are relatives or friends to provide care. Also the clarity is not up to par. For example in the statement: "When the nature of the relationship with family members or others close to them has changed, physicians must re-evaluate the nature of their relationship to determine whether they can still be objective.", is one supposed to reevaluate the nature of a relationship to determine if one can still be objective? This needs to be clarified and not left up to interpretation on the date of a trial.
Physician (including retired)
[December 12, 2023 5:47 PM]
This is very short-sighted and not well thought out at all.

There are many locations where access to Physicians is challenge, whether by location - eg small towns, with few numbers of Physicians and also many areas where there is a wait time to see a Physician - as in most of the Province (country!)

So to limit Physicians from taking care of "family/friends" in such a stringent manner when there is no option is actually endangering healthcare and denying access to many people.

Perhaps a caveat instead of "must not" might be prudent.

It also denies continuity of care.

Examples: elderly parent who gets COVID, then gets a super -infection. The GP office was asked for a call back, or possibly a Rx for antibiotics to be put into Pharmacy. It took nearly 48 hrs for the GP to respond. The Pharmacy wouldn't fulfill Rx written by daughter-an MD. Patient continued to deteriorate.
In the meantime antibiotics were "accessed" from a family friend who is a Physician. Patient was started on the AB's and patient finally started to improve.

So by your rules - that's a No-No.
But that would have led to her death.
And before you say take her to an ER.....where she would wait for 6+ hours (as the last time) that puts an added strain and burden on a system bursting at the seams and cost more $$.

So the guidelines are far too "stringent" and threaten peoples lives.

Respectfully
Physician (including retired)
[December 12, 2023 4:18 PM]
The policy should be more specific about the circumstances under which treating a minor condition in a spouse, partner, or romantic partner would run afoul of the regulation concerning sexual abuse. It would be absurd for a physician to provide emergency care to their spouse, only to discover that they have effectively engaged in sexual abuse merely because they have a consensual sexual relationship. This would create a situation in which a physician can never provide medical care, even under emergent circumstances and in the setting of a consensual and non-exploitative relationship, to their spouse or partner. This seems to defeat a key purpose of permitting close personal connection treatments in the first place.
Physician (including retired)
[December 12, 2023 3:36 PM]
I think there should be more flexibility on treating those close to you, especially for family doctors, as it is nearly impossible for people to find a family doctor due to shortages. We went into medicine to be able to help people during times of suffering yet the current rules essentially frown upon being able to help those we care about.