Organization
[February 13, 2024 3:29 PM]
Ontario Medical Association (OMA)
 
Response in PDF format:
OMA Response_20240213.pdf
Prefer not to say
[February 12, 2024 11:57 PM]
Physicians will leave Ontario if this is adopted. This is an overreach and it seems the regulator is going beyond the initial mandate of sexual abuse and fraud.

This will result in further moral injury for an already overworked professional group.

This will be picked up by the media, as a key reason why physicians will leave this province.
Organization
[February 12, 2024 9:07 PM]
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

Thank you for inviting us to provide input to the draft of CPSO Professional Behaviour policy. FAIR is a grassroots not-for-profit organization of MVA (Motor Vehicle Accident) victims who struggle to access the rehabilitation benefits they’ve paid for. The recovery journey and access to needed rehabilitation resources for injured car crash survivors depends on the quality of the work-product of Ontario’s Third Party Physician assessments, reports and testimony.

We note that the title of this consultation has changed from Physician Behaviour in the Professional Environment Policy to Professional Behaviour policy. That change in direction and the expansion into the personal and private lives of Ontario’s physicians has taken over the discussion on this policy. The CPSO draft policy appears to be in anticipation of possibilities "outside the professional context" and our concern is and was directly related to the work-product of Third Party assessors within the confines of their professional actions.

We continue to hear complaints about physicians hired by insurers for the purpose of IME/IEs or Third-Party reports and their action to bully and intimidate patients. Often their reports and testimony and contain elements of abuse as described in the Policy at consideration here. We do routinely hear about “Rude, profane, disrespectful, insulting, demeaning, threatening, bullying, or abusive language, innuendos, and actions” on the part of these assessors and ”Mocking, shaming, disparaging or censuring others” and too often the repeated failure to listen to patients and to promptly respond to requests for information.
All of this takes place in professional settings and not in personal and private situations. It is also the actions of a small subset of Ontario physicians who perform these medical assessments.

As a Regulator who is charged with protecting the public interest CPSO shouldn’t create a safe space for a small segment of their members who abuse Ontario patients just because they are in a situation where no ‘duty of care’ is owed to these patients. The absence of a ‘duty of care’ should not be seen as an absence of accountability or free pass to behave badly or abuse others.

We feel the need to comment again that the wording in this document does not reflect the wording in the THIRD PARTY MEDICAL REPORTS POLICY https://www.cpso.on.ca/Physicians/Policies-Guidance/Policies/Third-Party-Medical-Reports where vulnerable patients are referred to as ‘subjects of examinations’ or ‘clients’. We feel any protections offered in this new policy should also apply to these patients as well and that should be reflected in the wording of this document regarding unprofessional behavior.

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
 
Response in PDF format:
FAIR_Response_20240213.pdf
Other health care professional (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 8:20 PM]
The Advice to the Profession: Professional Behaviour document offers little beyond telling physicians to seek resources to assist themselves. This kind of individualistic conceptualization of “get help” does nothing to address institutional and systemic practices impacting wellbeing.

Not only devoid of substantive advice, the document also propagates harm by linking the issue of “trust, and good outcomes for patients” to physician “physical or mental health” (p. 1). This vague hyper-generalization the draws on and reinforces ableist assumptions that disabled or ill professionals are less safe than an imaginary “normal” professional. On the contrary, there is ample critical disability scholarship indicating that disabled professionals make unique and valuable contributions to patients, despite also having to navigate the additional stress of persistent presumptions of their inferiority, and heightened scrutiny and suspicion from colleagues and regulators.

The CPSO’s “Advice” document itself states that physicians are wary about seeking health care due to fear it will negatively impact their professional status. Feedback on this very consultation indicates that physician respondents are being subjected to permeating CPSO threat to their practices. There are dozens of pleas indicating unmanageable workloads, physician shortages, and a collapsing healthcare system. Distress is consistently articulated as stemming from the Professional Behaviour Policy imperative they maintain a clinical persona round-the-clock. Ample research demonstrates that stress has a measurable impact on neural/neuroendocrine responses, with indications that chronic and cumulative daily stress has a causal role in pathogenesis and disease progression. Fear and punitive PHP “get help” measures in turn further contributes to allostatic load, *producing* disparate health outcomes in a viciously compounding cycle of disablement. There is no indication that the CPSO is taking steps to address the insulting and destructive “get help” paradox it has produced, in part through its ableist institutional discourse and practices evident in this policy proposal.

While professionalism may seem like a neutral/apolitical concept, it is laden with hegemonic imperatives. For Black and Indigenous professionals this is compounded by racist “professional” Eurocentric norms regarding speech, language, dress, and presentation. References to rudeness, profanity, incivility, and anger especially are already used to undermine and pathologize via racist “angry Black woman” characterizations. Consultation feedback herein indicates how physicians of colour are already silenced in the face of racism from patients and colleagues: “a doormat” at work, in the words of Canadian Doctor Who Is Fed Up, February 9th.

In the context of prevalent Islamophobia, Muslim professionals in the province contend with false narratives of them as inherently threatening or unsafe. For queer 2SLGBTIA+ professionals, cissexism and heterosexist norms also impact perceptions of appropriateness and professionalism. This Professional Behaviour policy will serve to provide institutional authorization for ongoing tone policing, surveillance, and punishment of physicians who are members of historically oppressed groups who continue to experience disparate systemic violence. Another woman of colour physician also commenting on February 9th accurately and concisely identified this policy as an “aggression.”

Both the Advice and Policy documents also targets oppressed groups and allies by suggesting a connection between advocacy and potential problems with quality care, collaboration, and “culture of safety” in practice. The documents offer no explanation of how or why this link has been drawn beyond vague reference to “disagreement or conflict” (p. 2). This suggests a sort of existing static state of quality and “safety” that advocacy operates within, risking destabilization. This not only renders the indignities faced by oppressed physicians and patients invisible, it reveals that CPSO’s interest is in maintaining the imperialist status quo.

The absence of any substantiation throughout the documents - along with the concomitant drafting of these vague gestures to un/professionalism with widespread silencing and punishment of professionals’ expressions of Palestinian solidarity - suggests this is an effort to legitimize further anti-Palestinian measures against physicians. See “Where are Canada's leading health voices when it comes to Gaza?” by Shree Paradkar regarding responses to the unfolding genocide. Paradkar describes how while you would expect Canadian medical organizations and hospitals to be at the forefront of calls for an end indiscriminate bombing of residences, refugee camps, and hospitals killing more Gazan children in 3 months than all children killed in all global conflicts since 2019. Instead, physicians are being suspended for refusing to tolerate racist rationalizations for genocide.

The expectation to be silent, swallow grief, refrain from argument, and be positive, even in the face of daily dehumanizing rhetoric and broadcasted violence, is mentally mutilating. This policy should be replaced by commitment to justice, by addressing institutional and systemic causes of distress. To begin to address the thinly veiled anti-Palestinian racism evident in the chill on physician solidarity, the CPSO should re-direct the funds being used to craft this vile policy to material aid to physicians and hospitals in Gaza.
Physician (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 7:18 PM]
This proposal invites serious regulatory overreach. The College has no business in the personal lives of physicians.
Physician (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 6:42 PM]
society confers rights and privileges on physicians that are not enjoyed by other citizens

with these rights come responsibilities and obligations

if someone who is known to be a physician acts or speaks in a manner that is disgraceful, dishonourable or disreputable - and this includes spreading falsehoods and hate speech - then it reflects badly on the profession as a whole - and may make colleagues and patients alike question that physician's judgement; many colleagues may be left wondering if and how they can continue to trust and collaborate with such a physician, and many patients may be left fearing for their safety, or be unwilling or unable to rely on them for care

we are supposed to make professional decisions based on evidence, and provide a suitable amount of evidence and guidance to patients so they can make informed decisions

of late, we have seen physicians - even in an academic or institutional setting - regularly propagating unsubstantiated information as if it is fact

some have taken very public and very vocal positions in faraway conflicts that deny historical fact or that twist one group's history and narrative in such a way as to hurt or harm them and deny their right to exist - or chant slogans that are widely recognized as calling for genocide

when such actions are taken by a physician they negatively impact their ability to deliver care and continue to properly function within the wider healthcare system - as such, regulators, government, taxpayers, citizens, colleagues, patients and other stakeholders may want or need to intervene, in order to protect and preserve the healthcare system generally, and to protect individual patients especially if from a group that is harmed by the words or deeds of a physician

it is particularly troubling when there is the recurring appearance that those who may call for cultural sensitivity towards their own communities act in a way that is viewed as outrageous and totally insensitive toward others
Physician (including retired)
[February 12, 2024 4:10 PM]
This is concerning. Ontario already has labour laws set out on what is unacceptable behaviour in the workplace. This policy is vague such as “disrespectful” or “micro aggressions” which appears to merely be a means for CPSO or institutional bureaucrats to have a policy and mechanism to terminate any physician who doesn’t comply with their agenda. This policy ought to be canceled and revised to only state the exact behaviours which are unacceptable rather than vague statements of being “disrespectful” or “micro aggressions”. The policy should only state physicians are expected to comply with labour laws of Ontario including the charter of rights and freedoms. Any further policing physician’s right if freedom of speech with such a vague policies will be viewed as a punitive authoritative mechanism to manipulate and control physicians. This is a concerning step to restrict and overstep your reach in limiting physician’s right to freedom of speech.
Physician (including retired)
[February 11, 2024 5:45 PM]
We already have the police and courts if people do not behave appropriately in the personal sphere. We do not need additional oversight from the CPSO.
Physician (including retired)
[February 11, 2024 2:41 PM]
This is awful. Whoever came up with this policy should have to live under the requirements set for a year themselves and be threatened with termination if the screw if up to see how ridiculous is. I can’t believe this is what my dues are going towards
Physician (including retired)
[February 11, 2024 9:18 AM]
This document/policy is highly concerning to me as an early career physician. I agree that physicians should be held to a standard of professionalism during clinical activity, and while presenting themselves as physicians or representing the medical community outside of a care setting (ie education, social media, public speaking etc.). However, the proposition of professionalism standards being enforceable outside of the patient care setting and instances of professional representation (ie. in personal activity) is an unacceptable overreach and infringement on the freedoms of Ontario physicians.

The CPSO should dutifully mange the profession, not police the personal activities of physicians. If this policy is enacted as drafted, I will be reconsidering my participation in the Ontario health care system for the remainder of my career. The applicability/enforceability of this policy to activities in physicians’ personal lives must be removed for this to be acceptable to me.
Physician (including retired)
[February 11, 2024 12:31 AM]
The CPSO would do well to reconsider priorities. This policy is a colossal overreach and out-of -touch with reality. In a world where health care resources are strained, physicians are experiencing record levels of burnout, and physicians are leaving clinical practice in droves, the CPSO needs a deep reconfiguration of organizational direction.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 11:59 PM]
Just imagine one is on the sinking Titanic. A group of individuals now preventing people from getting onto any lifeboats that are not made from 100% recycled, fair trade, ethically sourced, vegan material.
This is what the CPSO's current draft policy feels like.
Oh look how much the ONA cares. Ontarians don't deserve care from physicians that are close to burning out so let's add this extra weight to really break their backs.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 10:44 PM]
I wish to echo the concern of many of my colleagues that the extension of any broad policy into the private lives of physicians ("outside the professional context") is disturbing and should not be allowed to stand. I would also argue that just because I identify as a physician on social media, should not automatically make the entire Internet a "professional context"!!

This encroachment on physicians is particularly keen when a physician is expected to adhere to a vague standard such as refraining from "Rude, profane, disrespectful, insulting [...] language, innuendos, and actions;".

Being rude, profane, disrespectful, and insulting is the glorious right of every human being. It is not a crime. We have freedom of expression that is protected under our Charter, and we did not give up these rights when we became physicians. This of course is not to say that such speech should be completely without consequence in the community - it should just not attract College (government/regulator) scrutiny!

Many would argue that being disrespectful and insulting is REQUIRED by the social contract to bring consequences on those who are in the firstplace rude or disrespectful to others. Should I be under threat of complaint if I express an opinion that a charlatan defrauding vulnerable patients with snake oil finds disrespectful? Can I not, in a conversation with friends (even if this conversation can be overheard, by those at the bar or by anyone on social media) use colourful ("profane") language to punctuate my point about how abhorrent such a business model is?

Physicians are already severely restricted from responding to rudeness, disrespect and profanity directed AT them, particularly in a professional context. This policy would further erode our ability to respond to such expressions EVERYWHERE. Such a hardline stance from the college would have an enormous chilling effect on physician advocacy for patients and the profession. This would result in yet another moral injury to the profession as a whole.

These ways of expressing oneself, when used outside of a professional context, should NEVER lead to risk of professional censure or loss of license unless they escalate beyond the vague definitions of "rudeness" (e.g. to a criminal level such as serious threats or hate speech).
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 8:31 PM]
What the Stalin is this propaganda? Not very Canadian ast all.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 8:25 PM]
A policey to silence the masses on Gaza, funded by North Korea
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 7:14 PM]
"Physician behaviour outside of a professional context that contravenes the standards of professionalism may be considered unprofessional under this policy."
Absolutely disagree. As long as the physician is not acting in the capacity of a healthcare professional, their lives should not be the concern of other citizens. Should the college get wind of "unprofessional behaviour" in someone's personal life, this could lead to grounds to chastise physicians. In cases that the individual can cause public harm, e.g. tweeting anti vaccine things with their MD credentials on their profile, appropriate action can be taken. Otherwise, physicians are entitled to having a personal life, just like everyone else in society.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 4:36 PM]
This is unreasonable and deeply concerning. While I can certainly appreciate that physicians must act professionally while working, this policy is setting inappropriate standards in my opinion.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 3:14 PM]
As world events are currently evolving, we should all be cognizant of the fact that the decisions about who is “in the wrong” and “who is in the right”, who are the oppressors and who are the oppressed, are often determined by opinion over fact. The ability of special interest groups and governments to spin facts and use rhetoric to dehumanize others and justify censure is at an unprecedented level. I deserve the inalienable right to free speech and to follow my convictions with respect to peaceful protest regardless of my status as a physician.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 1:32 PM]
Wait, you’re telling me I can’t get tipsy, wear whatever I want and sing Eminem Karaoke without being worried if some insecure hater of mine will report me and threaten my livelihood.

Okay master. Yes master. Your wish is my command. Mee moop beep bop crank.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 12:15 PM]
Stay out of physicians’ personal lives. Regulate professional behaviour when we are working as physicians but this is just a gross overreach. This opens up frivolous complaints from the public and increases stress upon an already burnt out population.

If this is enforced, you will see people leaving the profession in droves.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 11:44 AM]
Massive overreach that likely will not withstand legal scrutiny. Regulation of physician behaviour outside the confines of medical professional practice is absurd.
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 9:51 AM]
As a woman of colour I feel that this is opening up a space for my coworkers or anyone I come into contact with to forward a racist agenda.

I talk loudly. I have an accent. I'm passionate about my patients. But some could interpret this as rude or a microaggression.

I perceive this policy to be an aggression on my rights.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 9:36 AM]
As a physician and queer person, I am grateful to the CPSO for emphasized the importance of inclusion, equity, and diversity. That said, I am appalled at the idea that the CPSO would attempt to in broad strokes control aspects of my private life. This could be easily weaponized against other 2SLGBTQ+ folks, or BIPOC folks, or any other marginalized group, rather than protecting them. There is absolutely no specificity provided as to what kind of action/speech would be policed here, and how this would be implemented. Is there any other profession to whom such draconian oversight applies? The CPSO is showing time and time again that it doesn't have physicians' best interests at heart. As an early career doc there are mounting reasons to relocate my practice to a different province.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 12:38 AM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Canadian Doctor Who Is Fed Up

During work hours, you guys own me. I will bite my tongue when my patient tells me I speak English so well, even though I was born and bred here. I will hold myself back from getting upset when my patient calls another Asian doctor a [racialized slur]. I’ll be a doormat. I’ll take the high road. Because as a POC woman at work, that’s my role. Submissive, accommodating, ever smiling, smart, intelligent.

Outside of work, you have no right to tell me what I can do outside work hours. As long as I am not racist, violent, or commit a crime, I can and will do as I please. I will make jokes. I can dance however I please. I will dress however I please. I will get angry, sad, upset, happy. I will display human emotion. I can have a temper tantrum. I will make mistakes, I will learn and thrive. You have no control over my body. Pay me for my time then. Pay for my home. Pay for my vacations so I can decompress and be an human while abide by your rules the rest of the time. The CPSO no control or say over my body, or the words that come out of my mouth. You have no right to threaten everything I worked for and paid for, because I display emotion without malice. Shame on all of you. The literal audacity. I am so disappointed by CNOs statement. I wish I was unionized like your nurses CNO.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 10:44 PM]
Whoever came up with this should be fired. Every single person who contributed to this policy getting this far should be fired. And never allowed to work in any healthcare or healthcare adjacent field.
If I’m hammering a board for my new deck and hammer my finger and swear from the pain, I can be reported to the CPSO and have disciplinary action…. What the hell?? How is this supposed to help patients? How is this improving healthcare in any way? It’s not, it was it is.
Scrap this now!
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 2:11 PM]
What a joke! Now we have to act like church mice in our own backyards. Sorry, but none of us, including the CPSO employees, are perfect human beings. Maybe when you set a policy against abusive and rude patients, we’ll take you seriously.
Member of the public
[February 08, 2024 10:40 PM]
Well, that’s it, we’re going to lose all our doctors to places. As if the crisis in healthcare isn’t bad enough, the CPSO, who supposedly is there to protect and help patients, is going to totally destroy what’s left of the healthcare system. We’re gonna be screwed. Please don’t do this.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 10:34 PM]
Constitutional challenge. The lawsuit for constitutional challenge will bankrupt the CPSO and take any trust out of this organization in the view of society.
Just, no. Don’t do it. How did anyone even think this was a good idea? We’re humans, we’re allowed to be humans with emotions and reactions and relationships when we’re not at work. No one will want to work in Ontario anymore. This, too, will make the CPSO lose trust from society.
Don’t. Scrap it. Scrap it now. Put it in the bin. Cannot stress enough how bad an idea this is.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 9:45 PM]
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and consultation on this draft policy.

I agree with the many member's comments below. The policy in its current form represents an overreach into physicians' personal lives and the implications of such a proposal are profoundly disturbing and have the great risk of causing serious harm to physicians practicing in Ontario.

As a physician working and living in a small community, I am already very selective about who I interact with outside of work due to my professional identity and associated optics. This policy would make my private life even more isolated due to the risk of anyone in the public or my private life misappropriating and/or weaponizing this policy to meet their own agenda. Applied across our profession, this is a recipe for make our sick physician workforce sicker, would promote attrition and mistrust/paranoia in the medical community.

On top of the above concerns, I truly would not even know how to follow such guidance, even if it was enacted due to the vague and ill-defined language describing unprofessional behaviour. There is also real risk that the policy would harm those whom it hopes to help, due to prevailing dynamics of patriarchy and misogyny within profession and society at large.

Physicians are experiencing burnout and moral injury. I strongly oppose the policy and encourage the CPSO to seriously consider the feedback of members in this regard.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 9:09 PM]
This policy is absolutely ridiculous. Should I carry around a notebook to chart all my personal interactions like I chart my patient encounters on the EMR at work in case I get a cpso complaint from a random person on the street??
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 8:45 PM]
I think that this policy puts all physicians at risk. With so many doctors facing burnout already, we will now be instructed how to act outside of the workplace.

I think that this opens up the potential of abuse from disgruntled employees, colleagues and frankly anyone else who doesn't like you. What is considered rude. What is a microaggression?

What about our human rights? Our freedom of speech and expression?

We need to tread cautiously. This will severely impact the mental health of many in our profession
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 8:18 PM]
This is another overreach, cpso will open the door for more frivolous complaints. I don’t know how they manage their current work load with the blanket of policy of responding to every complaint, but a lot of times it’s a waste of the college resources, physician’s time, needless cmpa lawyer letters and a colossal waste of tax payer dollars. Not to mention that this overreach is unmatched by any other college. Enough is enough, there is a shortage of physicians and the physician community is feeling disenfranchised as is.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 7:10 PM]
If I have a nurse I work with who follows me on Instagram but probably doesn’t like me (but I accepted the request because I don’t want to be rude) sees my IG stories of my Vegas trip where I wear a bikini and dance to Burna Boy after 3 margaritas -is it okay if she reports me?
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 6:46 PM]
Are you serious?
Did I immigrate with my family running from a dictator to be a salve to another dictator under the name of regulating a profession?
That’s you, a regulatory body to a profession not to humans
Please have some integrity and wake up
Thank you
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 6:34 PM]
These changes are overreaching at best. They are intentionally vague and set expectations far beyond patients and colleagues. I perceive it as a tyranical tool to keep inconvenient "dissidents" in check. A society without freedom of speech is doomed.
Organization
[February 08, 2024 4:48 PM]
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA)
On behalf of CPSA, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft and advice and provide feedback.
 
CPSO may wish to consider the following:
  • Providing examples of behaviour that takes place outside the professional context
  • Alternatively, this concept could be addressed/expanded upon in the advice document
  • Clause 4: clarifying if advocacy is related to job action and, if so, how
    • Same as above re: advice document
  • Clause 5(g): providing an example of the timeframe expected by “promptly” since definitions and expectations will differ
  • Advice – first question: providing some reassurance that, while blanket promises cannot be made as each situation is unique, physicians’ ability to renew/retain registration or privileges will be considered contextually
  • Advice – third question: while CPSO does not regulate other health professions, it may be helpful to explicitly state that reports of inappropriate behaviour are welcomed from other healthcare providers (i.e., information from healthcare providers other than physicians will be accepted)
Please let me know if you have any other questions or require additional information.
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 8:33 PM]
Nice try CNO. Nice try.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 2:13 PM]
Please do not expect us to act the same way we do in the clinical environment to the home environment while also trying to promote our wellness. This does not go hand in hand. Please help us instead maintain better boundaries. The healthcare system is collapsing and asking us to act “professional” and interrogating our personal lives will only make physician burnout worse.
Other health care professional (including retired)
[February 07, 2024 3:11 PM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Hello,

Again, as a mature, retired nurse in Ontario (last position before early retirement was in clinical drug research - primarily oncology - for a pharmaceutical company until an acquisition by an out of province company) I have read the comments and the draft.

I agree with the January 25 CMPA and February 7 CNO submissions.

Reality across the province and the country includes millions of patients without a doctor, drastic shortages of doctors, nurses, other health care professionals so I think the intent and timing of this draft policy is far too ambitious in content and expectations.

In [redacted], our local public health unit leadership and a large long established family health team have been excellent during the pandemic as well as ongoing for many but not all local residents some who do not have a family doctor.

An ophthalmologist who has an almost 2 year wait list for cataract surgery appointment /as experienced by a family member recently) will be expected to provide valuable skill as he/she has practised for years however reality of so much more by this specialist or others (emergency room doctors with long patient wait times ?) is not reality.

Perhaps adding physician behaviour to medical students programs might be considered.

As a mature patient of a general practice physician for many years, I appreciate the care I have access to while many others do not have a family doctor.
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 12:13 PM]
I cannot tell you the microaggressions, bullying, swearing, mean girl behaviour I’ve witnessed amongst groups of female nurses. But CNO thanks for clarifying! I believe we should treat each other equally so I’ll be reporting poor behaviour as well, inside and outside work!
Physician (including retired)
[February 09, 2024 9:42 AM]
Great to see a response from CNO on this CPSO policy. I note the curious absence of any comment regarding the appropriateness of policing our personal lives and behaviour. Does the CNO agree with this? Is the CNO planning to implement such a change for their members? I look forward to their good faith response to my questions.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 10:27 PM]
There's nothing "concise" about this Sraconian policy. It is vague. Of course the CNO would support such nonsense. Propaganda to have less MDs so that NPs supported by the CNO take over without significant regulations and less oversight. Definitely no conflict of interest here 🙄
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 8:26 AM]
Of course you would support this nonsense. Why don't you impose the EXACT same expectations from nurses if you're such a firm supporter?
Physician (including retired)
[February 05, 2024 3:45 PM]
1) To those who are upset - this is not a new policy. It's been around for a while.

2) I agree with the recommendations made by the CMPA. Their post is below. The most contentious part of this policy has to do with "behavior that takes place outside of the professional context". This has to be very clearly defined, with examples, and justification - describing real world cases, where without this clause, there would be significant harm to the public or the profession. If this can't be provided then it should be removed.

3) When proposing treatments, physicians discuss the harms and benefits - the same should be stated in such policies in order for balance to exist. For example, the Professional Behavior and Social Media polices have had a very detrimental effects on free speech in Canada since the war in Gaza started. See the CBC article from Dec. 22, 2023 entitled "Chilling Effect". Even the author of that article was fired. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/chilling-effect-pro-palestinian-1.7064510

4) As a visible minority, I appreciate the inclusion of racism, etc, but as we have seen recently, a tyranny of the minority can occur by abusing such polices. Power and privilege must be contained and expectations of the profession should be addressed but we have the Ontario Human Rights Code, hate speech legislation, the CMA code of ethics, and many hospitals have codes of conduct that apply to our behavior. I suggest that an amended policy remain as an expectation, and not enforceable unless any behavior has led to patient harm.

5) How do you enforce some of the behavior in the professional context if it becomes a he said/she said scenario. The policy should clearly state which college committees would review unprofessional behaviors, exactly who can make complaints, the enforcement and disciplinary process is, and what potential disciplinary actions would be taken by the college, if any.
Physician (including retired)
[February 08, 2024 10:28 PM]
It's new. That's the point of the consultation.
Physician (including retired)
[February 06, 2024 3:35 PM]
Being new or not doesn’t invalidate everyone's feelings on the fact that the CPSO is trying to dictate our private lives. We’re standing on or virtual soapbox loudly bc this is our time to do so without their wrath.
Physician (including retired)
[February 05, 2024 7:40 PM]
It is absolutely a new policy in spirit and intent, as described on here: "Important updates have been made to address identified gaps and to enhance its clarity and scope."

More specifically:

"Although the expectations set out in this policy primarily apply to physicians’ behaviour in the professional context, they may also apply to behaviour that takes place outside of the professional context. Physician behaviour outside of a professional context that contravenes the standards of professionalism may be considered unprofessional under this policy..."

This push represents a massive power grab by which the CPSO wishes to grant themselves permission by fiat (without our consent or any public vote) to regulate every aspect of our personal lives and foster, accept, or reject personal complaints against us under the nebulous guise of "professionalism."

Got in an argument with your contractor? Refuse to pay because he didn't do the job properly and wrecked your house? Swear at someone once perhaps? Attend an entertainment event that seems "undoctorly"? Publicly express a socially unpopular political or personal view? Have an opinion on any controversial subject at all? Have a romantic relationship that goes bad?

Congratulation! If the CPSO or a random person in the public has a vendetta against you or your beliefs, you can now be deemed "unprofessional" and subject to a lengthy demoralizing complaint and remediation process where the "process is the punishment."

It is blatantly obvious how this will be used in practice. It will be used as all rules of this nature are used. Selectively and spuriously. To enforce the beliefs and whims of the administrators or those in the government above who grant them their power to regulate us. And/or to punish us personally through those in the public who have an axe to grind.

You ask for clarity on the circumstances under which a person's personal beliefs or behavior would be "unprofessional." But the lack of detail is precisely the point.

If the CPSO wants to write an entire new document explaining what entertainment, relationships, conflicts, arguments, politics, religions, and opinions we are allowed to pursue or not allowed to pursue in our private life, they could certainly go ahead and try to do that.

Just like the language on "microaggressions" they are shoehorning into these policies, they are not interested in the practical realities, or fixing real world problems, but rather giving themselves the power to correct us if we commit "thought crime" or they want to make an example of us. The rest is collateral.

If you cannot see this, you are missing the entire point.
Physician (including retired)
[February 03, 2024 12:43 PM]
The mere fact thay this has been suggested is disturbing. The right thing to do would be for anyone involved in producing this proposal to resign or be dismissed from

My job does not defiine me and I don't see how the CPSO should have any jurisdiction on my behavior outside of work. Why do I need to act "professional" when I'm not practicing my profession? Furthermore, should I not have the right to express myself even when I am working?

This policy is simply a mechanism produced by the College that would allow disgruntled employees, unreasonable colleagues/co-workers and any random individuals to unfairly damage the reuptations of physicians and tie them up with a time consuming complaint process.

Yet another sad example of a bloated, arrogant bureaucracy overstepping it's mandate.
Physician (including retired)
[February 02, 2024 1:17 PM]
The CPSO seems like it employs people who don’t actively practice medicine. I feel like the people who wrote this were probably retired nurses, police officers and people with HR degrees. People who don’t have the lived experience of practicing medicine with the stress and demands of providing patient care in a time where Amazon prime and Instacart exist. apologies if you find that offensive.

So no the policy is not helpful, not respectful, not relatable. I am offended by it deeply.

Come with me to spend a day in my life at work then tell me how you’d find this. Seriously shadow me!
Physician (including retired)
[February 01, 2024 4:41 PM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
I’m sorry but you must be crazy to think that your role is to in any way regulate my personal life. Good [redacted] luck with that. To say you are overstepping is a serious understatement in this case.
Physician (including retired)
[February 01, 2024 2:40 AM]
The people who become "administrators" in the CPSO to write policies like this clearly do so because they don't want to be actual working doctors. It seems they would rather spend their time pushing political agendas on physicians in order to enact social change.

Because the social agenda such ideologues typically favor is deeply unpopular and irrational (e.g. racism to fix racism is by definition just more racism), it can only be enforced through authoritarianism. So we see them therefore continuously trying to impose their will through progressively more Draconian policies.

It's sad that it has come to this.

There are already existing many nations where the state and its enforcement proxies tell the population what they can or can't say 24/7 in order to work and live. If you consider that utopia, perhaps you should move to one of those nations, rather than trying to destroy the great freedoms we enjoy in Canada.

My personal life is mine. My political and religious beliefs are mine. My dating life and my relationships with my family and friends are mine. How I spend my weekends is mine. My hobbies are mine. My entertainment is mine. Whether I swear among friends or I am rude to someone who tries to scam me is mine.

NONE of this belongs to you.

You may regulate my medical performance as a doctor and whether I provide safe and effective medical care. However, you do not own me. You do not have authority over every fiber of my being and every minute of my waking life.

This is a shameful representation of the current state of affairs. It is the further political weaponization of regulatory bodies to silence and intimidate doctors with threat of lawfare.

You demonstrate no respect for the rights and freedoms that ensure our democracy continues to function. Society benefits when those with the highest educations and most to say are free to continue to speak when needed.

This document goes against all the values that I was raised on in Canada as a proud Canadian. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Physician (including retired)
[January 31, 2024 10:29 AM]
Pay me enough hourly during my social life too I’ll stop my path to become the next John Mulaney or Ken Jeong (he’s the guy form Hangover, he’s a legit doctor) and making jokes that people with a low bar for criticism will find offensive.

But you cannot stop me from being a practicing doctor and an influencer. I am my own person, I paid my own tuition, I studied for my own exams?

What is your agenda? What vendetta do the people have?
Prefer not to say
[January 31, 2024 10:23 AM]
The draft on professional behaviour about controlling our staff and personal lives is reprehensible.

Since you guys want to know so much about our lives can you pls publish the names of the people who suggested this draft?
Member of the public
[January 30, 2024 9:59 PM]
I find this proposal rude. It has a lot of microaggessions. I will report it to the CPSO.
Physician (including retired)
[January 30, 2024 7:34 PM]
I work as a family physician, ER physician and hospitalist. On a daily basis, I endure abuse and demands from patients, their families and third parties who have a God like entitlement such as insurance companies. People are rude and berating and have no human decency. The CPSO then dares to propose a policy like this. It truly reflects how out of touch the organization is in their little ivory tower in the centre of the universe called Toronto. I dare the cpso physicians to do comprehensive family medicine in rural Ontario and then decide if being rude is unprofessional. Why is the CPSO such a spineless organization caving in to public pressure without facing the truth? It no longer is about protecting patients but is is about politics. Politics such as Gaza if I may say. The organization really needs an overhaul and to get in touch with the real challenged people they govern are facing.
Physician (including retired)
[January 28, 2024 9:44 PM]
It is completely unacceptable that an official CPSO policy would police normal day to day behaviour such as “swearing” and “being rude”. Are we not actual humans that are allowed to have off-days? We are all adults - if any of our personal behaviour is illegal, we already have an entire legal system to handle that the same as everybody else. Otherwise this insane overreach further propagates this image this physicians are some kind of strange hypothetical role model that aren’t actual people who deserve pay and vacations and have families to spend time with.
Physician (including retired)
[January 28, 2024 2:45 PM]
Dear colleagues at the CPSO,

I am writing in response to your request for feedback regarding the proposed draft policy amendment for physician Professional Behaviour- General Consultation. With respect to the scope increase pertaining to microaggressions, censure of personal argumentation (by physicians) and muting physician response to complaints, let it be said loudly and clearly that I and many of my colleagues are fundamentally opposed to an increase in the largess of such bureaucratic tyranny potentially imposed by regulatory bodies. We have a collective membership which already suffers, to quote Erich Fromm, under the unyielding effects of atomization, alienation and commodification. Such a proposal is not only egregious in the scope of behavioral control and reminiscent of Foucault’s panopticon but is purely anti-human and devoid of compassion. For those members who survived previous socialist experiments (notably under the U.S.S.R.) there is an appalling degree of proposed individual control (through an erosion of the personal freedoms, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) which is reminiscent of Kommisarial and Stasi social control endeavours of the 1950s-1980’s.

As part of the proposed changes, The College lists the concept of the microaggression but confusingly offers no operational definition of such? We know from the work of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt that the subjective nature of perception of such aggression is wholly erosive to the long-term psychological well-being of individuals and as they note, “the very antithesis of cognitive behavioural therapy principles”. Encouraging individuals to engage in monitoring for such offences erodes resilience and impairs antifragility described by Nassim Taleb. It also leads to the inevitability of ‘concept creep and psychiatrization’ noted by Nick Haslam (and colleagues), thus defunctioning efficient and otherwise pro-human social discourse over time, as individuals are preoccupied with the Foucauldian panopticon of self-monitoring and self-censoring.

On a more sinister note, the promulgation of concepts such as microaggressions leads the membership to understand that the College endorses the Woke deconstructivist doctrines. As noted by Gad Saad (through application of nomological networks of cumulative evidence) and the work of Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, not only are such doctrines not rooted in evidence but serve to shift the Overton Window of the society in a wholly negative dimension i.e. an unabashedly Cultural Marxist one.

Such professional behaviour amendments would encourage the unfettered impugning of the character of physicians by ad hominem attacks rooted exclusively in subjective experiences of the public complainants who are encouraged to indulge in the destructive modus of ‘cultures of honour and victimhood’ rather than the pro-social and adaptive ‘culture of dignity’ (as noted by the sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning). Further, said amendments constitute the continued recapitulation of the, tried and failed, socialist enterprise under the guise of progressive ideology, an ideology which touts equality and fairness but whose ultimate aims lie solely in the inversion of power and the exertion of control.

I, along with many of my colleagues, invite you to reverse your proposed policy position immediately or face being responsible for marked further attrition of members from the profession as they leave the province, the country and the very practice of medicine itself. It is simply astounding that the regulatory body of ‘The Noble Profession’ could be found so tone deaf to the ongoing suffering of its members (under the weight of present system stressors) and seek to add to that suffering, all as a result of postmodern Neomarxist ideological capture.

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.”- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”- Dr. Thomas Sowell
Physician (including retired)
[January 28, 2024 2:31 PM]
Dear colleagues at the CPSO.

Thank you for providing the draft policy for professional behaviour. Unfortunately, this policy sets an unrealistic and unobtainable standard for physician behaviour that will ultimately push away people from the practice of medicine.

In particular, it now includes "microaggressions" and "arguments" as being examples of unprofessional behaviour. Regarding the former : Before medicine, my focus of research was social and cognitive psychology, in particular unconscious biases. The literature around microaggressions does not provide a single consensus working definition of microaggressions in the first place, but, more worryingly, it seems to consider unconscious and implicit biases as microaggressions, even when clearly UNintentional. No one is without unconscious biases (even minorities) and the research is clear that many of these biases people do not realize and, as such, have very little control over. The implicit bias is an unconscious kneejerk reaction, and the sensible way to counteract these has been teaching people to recognize their own possible biases and take them into account in the balance of factors when making frontal-cortex driven decisions - to think before acting. There are no reliable ways to completely extinguish all biases - the best we can do is work around them. Making our way back to microaggressions, microaggressions roll into their definition the state of HAVING implicit biases as a reason for punishment. This kind of thought policing is not only a 1984 Orwellian nightmare, but of no use in eliminating the biases it's concerned with. It essentially states that the human condition is in and of itself unprofessional and should be punished.

Furthermore, given that there is no clear definition of microaggressions across varying literature, microaggressions are largely SUBJECTIVE in definition. If I feel that a man looked at me "wrong" because I'm a woman, I can say that he performed a microaggression and there is no recourse he has, because the alleged "victim" always takes precedence in literature around microaggressions. Therefore, perfectly normal or innocent behaviour can be deemed as loaded with evil intent based on nothing more than subjective feelings of the self-proclaimed victim. This opens the floor to thousands of complaints over perceived actions that may not even have represented a snub, inundating the college with useless busy work and driving up costs while doing nothing to improve the quality of the medicine we deliver. I've had patients complain about their specialists regarding such things as them not smiling enough, sitting too far, looking out of the window into the parking lot (the patient was not in the office) and other acts that while completely inane, can all be considered as "microaggressions" because anything is a microaggression if you want it to be. This is reiterated in this policy naming "comments or actions that MAY BE PERCEIVED as harassing" as a professionalism breach. Actions intended to harass are not acceptable ; actions that are innocent but someone takes out of context through whatever internal filters they have should not be automatically subject to being punished or policed.

The second piece in the same policy, about "arguments" being unprofessional, is likewise subject to wide interpretation. The policy already accounts for violence in argumentation (no yelling, no throwing things, no violence). Defining arguments any disagreement where a party feels disrespected is again wildly subjective - think of any patient demanding benzodiazepenes, opioids, or other substances who now have ground to make a complaint because the physician argued that for medical reasons they should not receive these substances and the patient felt that this denial was in and of itself disrespectful and they were the victim of a microaggression since clearly they know themselves best and the physician hold the power of prescription over them.

The final portion of the policy which states that "Physicians must not penalize, punish, or retaliate against someone who, in good faith, reports unprofessional behaviour or acts as a witness" also takes away our ability to terminate patient physician relationship once the clinical relationship has deteriorated beyond the point of no return. Once a patient makes a complaint, they indicate that they feel you are so out of line that you should have your license revoked. There is no trust left in that relationship. Forcing a physician to continue serving a patient like that is barbaric to both the patient and the doctor, as it forces the continuation of a toxic, mistrustful and resentful relationship.

The final huge concern I have with this policy is the statement "The professional context also includes any situation where a physician is publicly identified as a physician and/or is representing the profession (e.g., public appearances, printed media, and social media)." This is again Orwellian private censure and against the Charter right to free speech. This clause essentially says that the College has the right to censure what I say or do in my private life. We have seen the effects of this in recent physicians and residents getting absolutely destroyed by their own employers over social media posts. None of these people actually said anything terribly inflammatory, but they were taken off work and out of residency for essentially expressing (politely and without any call to violence or harassment) an opinion that was against the public majority at the time. There is no world in which this is acceptable - we do not live in a Marxist socialist state where the ruling state can blacklist people for expressing an opinion that's different from the herd. The fact that this would be included in a College policy far oversteps the right of the professional body into the physicians' private lives. This is in no way shape or form acceptable in a democracy that values freedom of speech.

I hope that due to the above concerns, the College will take a step back away from censuring the private lives of physicians. With medicine hanging in precarious balance as it is, given the cuts to funding, slew of retirements, understaffing and burnout, I would only hope the College will support its physician constituency instead of adding fuel to the fire that is the state of medicine in this province in recent years. Not doing so would risk the very values and freedoms that this country vows to represent, and will ensure that the College is ruling over an empty province with no doctors left to govern.

Thank you for taking this feedback into account and for respecting the deep-rooted concerns of myself and other members in regards to the proposed policy updates.
Physician (including retired)
[January 28, 2024 2:09 PM]
Microaggression is in the eyes of the beholder. as a member of the LGBTQ2A+ community, I am offended by this patronizing policy. We have mouths and if we perceive actual verbal or physical aggression, we have avenues to speak out. Punishing perceived slights only further stigmatizes our community, and restricts the care we can seek if physicians have to monitor every single word or action that they do.
Member of the public
[January 28, 2024 1:35 AM]
Not sure if this should be a draft policy or a daft policy...
Physician (including retired)
[January 27, 2024 3:08 PM]
This is pure comedy gold
Looks like we will have no neurosurgeons or ICU physicians left in the province as they will all be disciplined for being rude!
Also I won't have a husband anymore as he is always "arguing" with me. Perhaps CPSO can find me a better mate?
Lol
Physician (including retired)
[January 26, 2024 8:05 PM]
This is highly concerning behaviour on part of the CPSO. At a time when there is unprecedented moral burnout and mental and physical lack of wellness for physicians, instead of standing beside us, the CPSO is making policy statements that are veering into unfounded territory and come close to infringing on Charter Rights and Freedoms, which opens up the case for the organization to be potentially be held liable. What does "unprofessional" behaviour outside the professional context mean? The whole concept of professionalism is to relate to the *professional* workplace. Furthermore, this stands to disparage and discriminate against historically marginalized communities. If a marginalized and racialized person is arguing against discriminatory or racist policies and a community member does not like their tone or volume, does this count as "unprofessional behaviour"? If a member listens to "the wrong music" in their car with the windows down and a community member feels a physician should not be listening to such music, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician is seen at a movie at a movie theater that depicts violence or harsh language, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician engages in martial arts or combat sport, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician swears because their favourite team missed a goal at a hockey game, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a female physician is being attacked and screams out to keep her attacker away from her and uses profane language in public as her only means of calling for help and scaring the individual away, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician has dance as a hobby, and participates in community dance events that may highlight music with swearing or obscenities, is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician wears "too much makeup" or "too little makeup", is this "unprofessional behaviour"? If a physician is a certain weight (overweight or underweight) and a member of the public feels their clothes fit too poorly based on some subjective judgment and feels that this does not garner enough "trust and respect", is this "unprofessional behaviour"?

The CPSO is again, instead of working to protect physicians and the public, from real and considerable harms (such as practicing medicine in a state of dramatic underfunding where patients lay in hallways for days and days, and many family doctors have quit), wading into the realm of restricting Charter Rights and Freedoms which opens the CPSO up to legal action from its members.
Physician (including retired)
[January 26, 2024 7:05 PM]
I am very concerned about including personal online and social media opinions as being considered elements of patient safety; for one this is an excessive and, dare I say, Orwellian and litigenous approach to monitoring members. A physician may be pro life or pro choice and still support patient decisions under the terms of the Canadian health act. I have numerous concerns about opening the doors to complaints filed simply because one's physician is either opinionated or direct. As you may know a significant proportion of physicians are neurodiverse (with many undiagnosed and continuing to provide wonderful care despite the high demands on them); I urge to to consider that while not all CPSO members have a typical "professional" style, the vast, vast majority put great effort into ensuring that their patients, and the public at large, feel respected and heard. As it has been stated before: "25% of what is understood is how it is said, and 75% is how it is interpreted". We cannot be responsible for how other interpret our words. We document, seek feedback often and are all trying our best to accomodate for the impact of trauma, language and culture differences, and acuity of care.

Please do not let his become a source of further moral injury and anxiety; we are all giving all we have to care for patients, and need to feel we are colleagues, not sacrificial lambs.

Thank you for reading,

The front lines.
Physician (including retired)
[January 26, 2024 5:30 PM]
The proposed changes to this draft are disappointing to say the least. The CPSO seems to be forgetting that physicians are civilians first.

It’s clear this policy is not about encouraging professionalism, but rather establishing legal grounds to police and punish physicians. Not sure if the CPSO is assuming that the physicians it accepts into the college are people who enjoy acting “unprofessionally” for no reason at all?

Who is the CPSO to say that physicians defending themselves against discrimination is “unprofessional”? If the CPSO wants to step in and address the harassment physicians face all too often, they can be my guest. Until then, they have absolutely no right to push a policy which would force physicians to tolerate disrespectful behaviour without risk of legal repercussions.

These types of policies will only worsen the physician shortage and physician burnout over time. Whoever wrote this policy is clearly living under a rock.
Physician (including retired)
[January 26, 2024 2:22 PM]
I find this proposal completely abhorrent. I am a physician during my work hours, patient-facing hours, and when I am engaged in clinic or medical administrative duties. But I am also a human being. The CPSO has no regulatory authority over civilians and this is a gross overstep of jurisdiction.
Physician (including retired)
[January 26, 2024 10:58 AM]
This policy is a gross overreach on the mandate of the CPSO. The actions of physicians on social and virtual media is of no relation to patient safety unless they are illegal, which is already punishable through other channels. It is not the CPSO's role to infringe on police physicians personal behaviours under the guise of maintaining "public trust and morale".

This draft also needs to cut out all vague wording such as "rude".

I would also bet nearly all physician's social media contains some element of their job that makes it identifiable - when you spend most of a decade in medical training, it would be abundantly clear that you are physician in your social media even if you don't include MD in your posts. So I can't curse or make a off the cuff joke on social media because someone can see my white coat picture then complain to the CPSO??

I'm sure patients would find some types of social stances and advocacy to be "rude" or "demeaning" depending on the situation as well. Ridiculous.

Lets keep the professionalism to the clinical setting and official statements/reports/talks.
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 7:29 PM]
i would really like to know who came up with this useless proposal. what we do in our private lives is none of cpso's business!!!!!!!!
i mean, think about it logically, this is weaponization of "professionalism" by a corrupt organization hoping to garnish support. more smokes and mirrors to hide incompetence. hope the conservatives scrape this ridiculous cult.
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 5:27 PM]
The statement in this policy about monitoring and accepting complaints against a physician for behaviour seen as unprofessional outside of the professional/work environment is very disturbing to read.
This policy absolutely should not be allowed to go through as is.

I am particularly concerned by how this would affect physicians working in more rural areas. It is already more of a challenge to maintain privacy and barriers between personal and professional life in these communities. If you add an ability for people to make professional complaints against a physician for actions that are in their personal life only and have no affect whatsoever on their professional performance as a physician, this would have a very drastic negative impact on how likely physicians are to choose work in rural communities. We are in a primary care crisis and this policy would only act as a catalyst to worsening that crisis. This policy would lead to an increased sense of burnout amongst physicians and lack of feeling of respect for our personal boundaries and our right to privacy and protection of our personal lives as human beings. There is no reason whatsoever to grant authority to dictate what we can and cannot do in our personal lives if it has no bearing on our professional interactions and abilities.
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 5:22 PM]
A huge topic with expectations of a profession under siege from all sides. I think it is necessary to involve the Profession and also to have the opportunity to analyze in depth what reasonable people think about both marginalized, peripheral, and minorities who should have some input.
Organization
[January 25, 2024 2:10 PM]
Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA)
Response in PDF format: 
PMP & PB_CMPA Response_20240125_Redacted.pdf
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 12:29 PM]
This is absolutely abhorrent behaviour from the CPSO.

Do they think they are acting in place of the supreme court of Canada? How can they possibly think they can regulate how physicians behave outside of the professional setting? Do they not realize they are violating freedom of expression and IF there were any repercussions required as a result of that, it is in the jurisdiction of the legal system, NOT the CPSO.

Do they not realize that burnout among physicians is already spreading like wildfire and you want to add more fuel to it? Your job is to protect the patients and reducing the workforce that looks after their health is going against your own mandate. The CPSO already fans the flames by succumbing to entitled behaviour from patients who complain about something as little as how the doctor said "goodbye" to them. The CPSO tell doctors to forego their safety in the light of threats from patients because patients are vulnerable - so vulnerable that they tell you to drop dead right? Yet the CPSO closed its doors from in person visits from the public because they are worried about their own safety, meaning they are definitely aware of the reality of threats from patients, but it doesn't matter when it comes to the safety of healthcare professionals.

Sure, your job is not to protect the healthcare professionals, but you can at least have some decency and common sense that this policy is pervasive and borderline dictatorship. Stop this, before you violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even further.
Member of the public
[January 25, 2024 11:27 AM]
Not acceptable. Physicians are humans like everyone else and have a right to their own private lives.
Physician (including retired)
[January 25, 2024 7:41 AM]
This policy, for lack of better term, is simply ridiculous in this modern day and age, throwing us back into some sort of medieval, dictator age.
CPSO cannot and should not dictate physicians private lives and control suppress their freedom of speech which is what this policy is all about.
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 7:36 PM]
The context in which "unprofessional behaviour" is being used is an absolute overreach on CPSO's part. In a perfect world, everyone an individual may have encountered in their life would've been fond of them, but this is never the case. How would you verify if a vindictive ex-partner, an estranged family member, or unsatisfied patient's comments citing the aforementioned behaviours from the physician are truthful? I am confident you will see the kind of mental stress this would add to already burnt out physicians' plates.
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 10:36 AM]
1.The draft is super clear. Clear as crystal
2. The draft is incredibly unreasonable. Obviously people upset here is because of the section where the CPSO expects us to be professional in our personal lives without paying me to do so. If I drink and do the Macarena at a party, if I act loose,, if I argue with my sister in law who probably doesn’t like me can they report me?

I feel like this is so dystopian. I feel like you are viooleting my rights. What possessed you to even consider such a draft ?

It makes me disheartened, it makes me sad, it makes me want to move to NYC.
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 9:15 AM]
Unbelievable. Egregiously inappropriate. The irony of crafting a policy about professionalism that is so wildly unprofessional!! Report thy self!
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 8:45 AM]
Draconian overreach to the extreme and dare I say violates charter rights. The CPSO has no right to "police" our personal life and personal time. Should the policy be adopted we will challenge this in the court system if necessary.
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 12:42 AM]
Completely unprofessional on CPSO's end for even putting this forward. Whoever did should be fired immediately.

Also a complete violation of human rights. This is dictatorship.
Physician (including retired)
[January 24, 2024 12:37 AM]
Bad idea. It is these types of policy that will add fuel to the fire for physicians to leave Ontario and practice elsewhere.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 10:25 PM]
Why is the CPSO getting involved in my life outside of the professional setting? With my friends and in public, I have the right to act however I feel comfortable. I'm not a physician 24/7. This policy is a clear breach of the private life of the profession.

The CPSO is losing its credibility by the minute. Enough is enough!
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 7:32 PM]
If you wanted to always watch people, and check your list twice, and ensure people are always on their best behaviour outside of work maybe the employees and board (and people who suggested this draft pertaining to policing us outside of work) should move to the North Pole and become Santa Claus.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 7:28 PM]
I thought I became a doctor. I didn’t join the Church of Physicians and Surgeons who tell me they (a higher entity) are always watching me outside of work. I implore you to humble yourself, the board and employees of the CPSO are not God.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 6:58 PM]
This is unbelievable.
The subjectivity in this is ludicrous. You all should be ashamed, frankly.
Micro aggressions are in the eye of the beholder, and offer the opportunity for people to learn when they are called out on them.
Your policy is punitive, totally outside your lane, and not helpful.
At a time where all of us are burnt out, trying to fix a system that no one else is helping us to fix, this is a slap in the face.

I’m disgusted.
Member of the public
[January 23, 2024 6:44 PM]
Is cpso intentionally hoping to make people angry because they've got nothing better to do?
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 3:34 PM]
Yet another reason to leave the profession. The utter disregard for physicians as human beings is shocking. Everyone involved with the creation of this policy should be ashamed of themselves.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 2:37 PM]
To the dear CPSO employees

Thank you so much for asking for feedback. The line about professionalism outside the workplace is quite an overreach.

Here’s my feedback
1) stay in your lane
2) mind your business
3) who died and made you the dictator it my body and thoughts and emotions?

Cheers
Medical student
[January 23, 2024 2:36 PM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
This is the definition of ivory tower nonsense created by people who are not front line and [redacted].
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 2:27 PM]
Do NOT go forward with this draft.
Sure, in clinic/ hospital settings, MD's should/need to act in a professional manner.
This policy (as you've read the other comments now) bares to to pierce into the privacy of ppl's homes/outside our role as a clinician this is detrimental. I'm glad my colleagues rightfully commented with their overwhelming disapproval. Overall, we cannot allow this to happen through being silt or silence of any sort that goes against the concept of free speech in one's *private* life.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 1:06 PM]
A gross violation of personal space and overreach by the CPSO
Totally unacceptable, yet they may not care to listen to these comments and push ahead
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 10:30 AM]
This is a charter issue section 2 b. Freedom of expression. Get back in your lane.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 7:00 AM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Stop with this utter [redacted] and pay us family doctors more already before there are none left. Wake up.
Physician (including retired)
[January 23, 2024 12:06 AM]
It looks like our organization, the CPSO, is becoming a joke. No other professional organization- that of dentists, nurses, lawyers, accountants etc tries to overstep boundaries and force such harsh rules and penalties on their members. Are they not professionals? What kind of God enlightening "professionalism" is expected of doctor's and why is is so different from everyone else who is also a professional. Does the CPSO live under a rock? Such distasteful proposals should never be entertained. Absolute joke and a violation of human rights. CPSO should be sued if this goes through.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 10:24 PM]
Can I file a complaint against the CPSO? The CPSO has no regulatory authority over civilians and this is a gross overstep of jurisdiction. This proposal is unprofessional and wreaks of a power grab. Stay out of my personal life! The CPSO is barely functional on a professional level. Fix that first!
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 10:23 PM]
CPSO do regulate our clinical encounters and patient encounter but our private life is nothing to do with CPSO to try to regulate. This is a violation of our right to privacy.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 10:00 PM]
When I read such a proposal, I cry. This is not about professionalism but about authoritarian dictatorship. The CPSO has no business in a physicians personal life. Such extrapolation wil just be the CPSO "hunting for a reason" to punish a physician. I bet all the individuals in the corrupt organization are tainted, so may he who is pure cast the first stone. This organization serves little purpose, and it should be demolished in preference for criminal courts. At least they will be more fair.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 9:50 PM]
Absolutely not OK. The CPSO has no right to regulate doctors' private lives at all, let alone in such a broad sweeping manner. Who determines if something is rude or profane or acceptable for someone to do in their PRIVATE life? This can and will be weaponized to abuse doctors not only in their work life (where doctors are already being abused) but now in their private lives as well, and by their own organization. Vengeful, disturbed individuals in doctors' private lives will use this policy to make claims against them which, whether they have any basis in reality or not, should not be deliberated over by a professional organization. And even if a complaint is thrown out, doctors do not deserve to go through such an ordeal. This policy could also be used against any doctor speaking out about their PERSONAL beliefs on topics (ie political, religious, etc) that may differ from the 'currently accepted mainstream narrative ' (this does not pertain to peer reviewed scientific wisdom or best practice standards which would directly impact their practice of medicine). Sharing their beliefs may not even be done on a public forum (which they have every right to do), but in private conversation where someone may take a comment badly. Is it unprofessional for someone to share their faith and belief system? Their views on current world conflicts? Dry humour? These beliefs and opinions have nothing to do with what is professional or pertain to someone's ability to practice medicine. This is 100% thought policing and against doctors' human rights.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 8:53 PM]
I am a physician during my work hours, patient-facing hours, and when I am engaged in clinic or medical administrative duties. Before a physician I am a human, civilian, citizen during all non-task hours. The CPSO has no regulatory authority over civilians and this is a gross overstep of jurisdiction, near ironically unprofessional"
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 8:19 PM]
Physicians are humans too, and we have a right to privacy in our personal lives. We have a right not to be policed by our professional college in settings outside of medicine. Opening up another vector for attack against physicians should not be the focus of the College, but instead on developing ways to weed out frivolous complaints which waste time, effort and money for an already strained system.
Prefer not to say
[January 22, 2024 7:59 PM]
As a member of the physician workforce this piece of legislation is deeply concerning. The CPSO has no right into our personal lives nor should it have a right to hear from patients on it. The language used and what is being considered is over the line.

If my partner and I are having a conversation and someone overhears it, if someone overhears someone at a sporting event cheering, if someone in any forum interprets something different, then you are literally destroying the fabric of physicians lives and right to peace in their personal time and space.

This consistent type of legislation will force many to leave medicine over time.
Other health care professional (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 7:43 PM]
I am deeply disturbed by what I have just read. If it wasn’t for the CPSO and the fear the continuously try to instil, I may actually enjoy my job. Shame on you.
Member of the public
[January 22, 2024 7:37 PM]
If this was in the world of Harry Potter the CPSO and people who came up with the draft is Dolores Umbridge. And physicians are the undesirables.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 7:21 PM]
This is absolutely absurd! Policing physicians personal lives would cause even more burnout. We are just like any other human being and entitled to our privacy. Stay out of our private lives!
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 7:18 PM]
If the CPSO pays $999/ hr maybe they can control how much I swear, but I’m still allowed to and throw the pillow my brother when he insists on getting pineapple on pizza, and mock the way he says mature.

Should I just wear a body cam?
I’d wear one if you pay me enough! Name your price!
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 7:01 PM]
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. This is a really shocking proposed policy and I’m surprised CPSO would present it in this form to membership. Although perhaps not the intended utilization of this policy the way this reads to me is that any non-patient person can make a complaint about another human being who they happen to know is a doctor and had a negative interaction with (in a setting where there is no specific active patient-physician interaction between the two). I struggle to understand why this would fall under the mandate of the CPSO; if this is the intended purpose of the policy then it is a significant, inappropriate, and unethical overreach. If it is not the intended purpose of the policy, then I would strongly encourage it to be re-written to better reflect the circumstances you are trying to capture. (Is this aimed at a situation where a physician self-identifies themselves as such in a non-clinical setting but is still intentionally using their “MD” to carry out certain actions?).
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 6:14 PM]
Please just stop this rubbish about Policing Physicians Private lives. If you go ahead with this nonsense policy of policing our personal lives I'll convince others to leave Ontario.

Why are Physicians held to impossible standards and then the public gets held to less than no standards? Do we report the public to CPSO too? Is there a reciprocal Policy for others too or just Physicians?

CPSO you better throw away this rubbish Policy and get it shredded ASAP.

Please don't make our lives more difficult for us. Is it a crime to be a Physician? We are not angels please.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 6:08 PM]
This new updated policy threatens our basic human right for privacy as physicians. CPSO has no right to be involved in physician's personal life, unless there is a criminal offence.
Physicians should be treated as human beings and have equal rights to privacy as patients. This policy is breaching our basic rights
I strongly feel against it
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 5:11 PM]
As a medical professional, my responsibilities encompass patient interactions, clinic duties, and administrative tasks during working hours.

However, outside of these professional commitments, I am foremost an individual, a member of the general public, and a citizen.

It's important to note that the regulatory reach of the CPSO does not extend to private citizens. Their jurisdictional overreach in this context is, paradoxically, unprofessional, demoralizing, and will lead to a further exodus of physicians from Ontario. I am a primary care doctor who is struggling every day to keep up with the demands of a crumbling healthcare system and patients who are getting more and more abusive and frustrated and scared for their health in the face of such a system. Policies that overreach like this will be the death knell of family medicine in this province.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 4:14 PM]
I witnessed staff being told 1) I hope your child suffers 2) I hope you suffer 3) staff being called a racist slur for an East Asian.

don’t worry though I’ll tell them not to react or get upset and to take it with stride since the CPSO will get ME in trouble for their actions. Is the CPSO Ursula or something?!
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 3:47 PM]
This policy should not "apply to behaviour that takes place outside of the professional context." There are already laws in place to address unprofessional behaviour so egregious that it becomes criminal. Any behaviour outside of the workplace that does not meet the bar of bring criminal should not be policed by the CPSO.
Member of the public
[January 22, 2024 3:35 PM]
You guys are doing too much. Yall at the CPSO are tripping on power. Like wow. Wow wowz
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 3:24 PM]
This policy is absolutely awful and couldn’t come at a worse time for physician well being. We have the right to say and do what we want (within the law) without being subject to being penialized by the CPSO. This policy goes way too far and will harm marginalized physicians the most. You should be ashamed to even put this forward to members, it is unbelievable
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 3:09 PM]
This policy poses a slippery slope in that it can potentially impact the freedom of physicians expression in their personal life and is a slippery slope leading to possible censorship. I would strongly be opposed as a result to this policy being applicable outside of the professional sphere.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 3:07 PM]
My mother in law HATES me, guess I better start buttering her up now bc she’ll tell on me to the CPSO!
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 3:06 PM]
Are the people who come up with these suggestions okay? Do you need therapy or empathy? Or did I suddenly wake up in a policed dictatorship. Last time I thought this was Ontario, Canada.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 2:53 PM]
Absolutely ridiculous to control our private lives. Invasion of privacy and our individual rights. You already don't have our backs on frivolous complaints and now adding fuel to the fire. Can we start dismissing patients who make persona mistakes or are unprofessional? Give me a break.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 2:36 PM]
The CPSO has a responsibility to protect patients from harm, neglect or negligence from physician action, which is an important role. I fail to see its use in protecting patients when it comes to policing physicians in their everyday, personal lives. One would have to assume that the CPSO would then be able to judge political, social, judicial, ethical familial, financial and all sorts of other matters outside of a professional setting, which, to be frank, it is not equipped to do and likely opens it up to liability should it choose to practice in such an expansive scope. I would recommend against this.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 2:31 PM]
I find this over reaching. We are policed enough. I can offend anyone at anytime if they find it is offensive. Whether it is meant to be offensive or not. There is vague language like "rude" what does that mean? Rude to you or rude to me. I mean obviously we have to act professional. The college already requires this. We don't need to take it further.
Member of the public
[January 22, 2024 2:28 PM]
This is the CPSO weaponizing itself against racial minorities in the end.
Physician (including retired)
[January 21, 2024 8:54 PM]
Absolutely, physicians must be meet their professional obligations and behave in a professional manner in the workplace. That said, I feel completely unprotected by the CPSO in the face of potential complaints. With increasing patient demands and requests in a healthcare system that is crumbling and unable to meet these demands, it seems individual doctors and especially primary care physicians are made to make up for the system failings. My colleagues and admin staff are bombarded with requests for apts at the specific time requested, for telephone calls even when an important diagnosis could be missed because the patient declines to come in person, requests for imaging that may or may not be indicated and repeat referrals to specialists that are repeatedly declined. Instead of reaching into doctor’s professional lives, we need a CPSO that advocates, supports and protects us in addition to protecting patients.
Physician (including retired)
[January 21, 2024 5:53 PM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
The CPSO continues to successfully convince me more and more all the time that they are a criminal organization run by fanatic lunatics.

[redacted]…and now this. You’re a black stain on the history of medicine. You should all resign immediately in disgrace.

God help us.
Physician (including retired)
[January 21, 2024 8:59 AM]
Collective agreements, Human Rights Tribunal, Privacy Commissioner, Occupational Health & safety, Ministry of Labour, Medical Staff rules & regulations, general laws etc. all govern the employee - employer relationship. So, no matter if the MD is an employee or employer, the MD is subject to "double" punishment. The CPSO should stay out of the employee, employer arena and let the appropriate established process govern. If a dispute / allegation can be handled by an existing workplace policy then the CPSO should not become involved.
Physician (including retired)
[January 20, 2024 11:22 PM]
The CPSO already has the strictest complaints process in Canada and significantly stricter than the United States. Having looked into other similar nations, their complaints process is not anywhere as strict as most provincial colleges let alone CPSO.

This is just another move that goes against common sense. Regulating private lives is way outside of the scope of CPSO. It violates human rights.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 9:53 PM]
What are some factors that emboldens the employees of the CPSO to be so strict to even entertain such ideas?
Physician (including retired)
[January 20, 2024 9:46 PM]
Essentially this policy negate the basic human right to privacy for physicians. CPSO is responsible for medical related issues and hould NOT have any interest in physician's personal life, unless the physician has committed a criminal offence.
We should be treated as human beings and have equal rights to privacy. This policy is breaching our right and is against law.
Personal life is our personal life. We keep professional and personal separate as per cpso policies.
Physician (including retired)
[January 20, 2024 7:07 PM]
It’s commendable to try to protect all these people, but you will quickly have no physicians left working in Ontario with staff with this new regulation. There are lots of staff who are very sensitive to what authority figures say or do, and its inevitable that some staff people will be upset at some point at any particular physician regardless of how careful they are. This is a very harmful and unnecessary foray into political correctness. It would be much better to keep the current policies that list specific behaviours that are not acceptable and police those. This is much less subjective and much more appropriate. Yes some physicians demonstrate inappropriate behaviour, but most physicians are very appropriate with staff and yet I doubt any employer with any experience has managed to completely avoid some staff person being uncomfortable in some way about something happening in the work place. It is important to have the skills to work those things out, but this is not a matter for the College.
Other health care professional (including retired)
[January 20, 2024 1:06 PM]
This policy will be weaponized against racialized communities, under the guise of a "culture of safety". It will lead to targeting and policing of Black, Indigenous, Palestinian & other racialized communities facing injustice in Canada and beyond. These communities have an urgent need for advocacy and visibility in the community & online. They will be silenced & disadvantage using these policies. The CPSO's policies are much more restrictive and harmful than those of similar medical bodies in Canada.
Physician (including retired)
[January 19, 2024 11:56 PM]
When regulatory organizations involve themselves in policing the private lives and speech of its members, they lose credibility. Punishing physicians for being "rude" (which is a completely subjective concept) in their PRIVATE LIVES makes the CPSO seem like an overbearing, virtue-signalling organization that has lost its sense of direction with regards to its mandate: protecting the public. Inserting the arbitrary morals of corporate-CPSO into the private lives of physicians does not protect the public. All it does is alienate physicians further, and make us less likely to practice medicine. At a time when millions of Canadians are without a family doctor, the last thing the CPSO should be doing is alienating physicians and trying to stop them from living their private lives WITH PRIVACY.

The college must also consider the unintentional consequences of this policy when it comes to many issues of human rights. Indeed, this policy will facilitate complaints that are probably contrary to the CPSO's "morals and values".

Under this policy, what is stopping a Jewish individual from making a complaint about a Muslim physician, simply because the Muslim physician expresses support for Palestine in their private life (a perceived "microaggression" against Jews)? Likewise, this policy would allow for a Muslim individual to make accusations that a Jewish physician is supporting genocide (much more than a "microaggression") simply because they state, in their private life, that they believe Israel has a right to defend itself against violence. Should the CPSO be inserting itself into this issue? Certainly, by the definition of "microaggression", both of these examples would warrant a CPSO complaint and action by the college.

If a female physician assertively calls out a man for harassing her in a bar, by yelling at him to "leave me alone, you creep!" (i.e. an encounter in her private life), that man would be able to make a CPSO complaint on the basis of the physician engaging in shaming, disparaging, and insulting behavior (his side of the story: "I was just being friendly, and she started calling me names!").

If a female physician gets into an argument with an abusive spouse, where she yells at him and asserts that he does not have a right to use her body (i.e. an argument in her private life), her spouse could initiate a CPSO complaint on the grounds that she has engaged in a disrespectful argument and/or outburst of anger.

If a physician tells a joke to a group of their friends at a private gathering that invokes "the Pope", they could be subject to a CPSO complaint, because this is the very dictionary definition of a "profane" joke (i.e. "a lack of respect for things that are held to be sacred"). This same concept could also extend to a physician criticizing the Catholic Church's involvement in the Residential School system; BY DEFINITION, criticism of the Catholic Church is "profane" to many Catholics, so a physician engaging in such criticism in a private setting could be subject to a CPSO complaint for engaging in "profane" behavior.

If a physician decides to attend a production of the Tony-award-winning Broadway musical "The Book Of Mormon", and posts on social media about how much they enjoyed the show, they could be subject to a CPSO complaint for engaging in "profane" behavior towards Mormons.

If a female physician who is a survivor of female genital mutilation speaks out about and criticizes the practice in her private life, she could be subject to a CPSO complaint for engaging in discriminatory behavior/language towards cultures and people who believe in the practice.

If a Ukranian-born physician criticizes the Russian government for its attacks on Ukraine by speaking at community events or posting on social media, that physician could be subject to a CPSO complaint for engaging in "microaggressions" towards Russian people.

If a physician posts on social media that "Donald Trump is a terrible president", this could warrant a CPSO complaint for using disrespectful language (as this statement does not respect the office of the President of the United States).

How would the CPSO deal with any of the above? Under the current policy, these complaints would be completely warranted. And if CPSO is basing their policies on subjective concepts like "being rude" or "profanity", all of these complaints would warrant disciplinary action towards the physicians involved.

Stay out of physicians personal lives. Stop trying to police physician behavior when it has nothing to do with public safety. Otherwise, the CPSO will become a parody of itself.
Physician (including retired)
[January 19, 2024 12:11 PM]
It is not within the purview of the CPSO to regulate physicians private lives. They should stick to professionalism as it relates to professional conduct.
Prefer not to say
[January 19, 2024 12:10 PM]
While the intention here is to provide more clarity, this suggested policy change does more harm than good. "Professional environment" should by default not extend to the individual's personal life to govern interpersonal interactions except in very rare circumstances (crime for instance). This is overreach and a poor use of CPSO time and resources. Physicians should also not be held liable in the college's eyes for reports of behaviour of their staff, at a time where patients and the public often take out their system frustrations on physicians and their staff. It's a no brainer that true unprofessional behaviour by ones' staff is the physician's responsibility to address (and of course would be done as their employer), but this does not at all need to be included in this policy.
Physician (including retired)
[January 19, 2024 1:07 AM]
The role of the CPSO is to regulate medical practice, and protect pts from malpractice. The end. If it is not medical, or abusive in the medical setting, it is none of the CPSO's business.
Prefer not to say
[January 18, 2024 11:23 PM]
Does CPSO believe physicians have no rights to personal life, no rights to get frustrated, no rights to feel annoyed, no rights to argue, no rights to defend themselves, and no rights to have their own opinion in their life? Physicians are humans with emotions too, not robots.
This also has great potential to be abused. One example I can think of is a vindictive ex-partner of a physician reporting the physician on the basis of simply having had "arguments".
CPSO should NOT have any interest in physician's personal life, unless the physician has committed a criminal offence.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 9:50 PM]
The revised policy overreaches the boundaries of a professional college, and infringes on MDs humans rights. Physicians should engage professional in there day to day lives while acting in their role as an MD to ensure patient safety, however, it is inappropriate for the CPSO to police how a physicians acts in their personal life. Disagreements, conflicts etc the physician has in their personal life that do not involve direct patients care is outside the role of the CPSO to manage and control. The revised policy creates a state where an MD is defined by their degree in ALL aspects of their lives. MDs are humans first, then physicians. As humans, we have rights, including free speech and action, as long as they abide by the law and do no promote violence.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 9:03 PM]
Physicians are humans and facing unprecedented burnout. The CPSO is a huge part of that burnout. Your demands and standards are literally beyond human.

We won't have healthcare providers if you keep demanding superhuman standards even in our private life.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 6:40 PM]
Significant concerns with this policy.

- Privacy Rights: There is a fundamental right to privacy.

- Chilling Effect on Freedom of Speech and Expression: Physicians will fear consequences for expressing personal opinions or engaging in activities outside of their professional roles.

- Potential for Retaliation: Subjective criteria for assessing "rudeness" opens the door to false or retaliatory complaints. Individuals may exploit the system for settling personal grievances against physicians.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 5:52 PM]
To whom it may concern,

I'd like to provide feedback on CPSO's Consultations. 

The CPSO needs to be explicitly clear on what is and isn't allowed when it comes to Professional Behavior. Physicians are human beings and Canadian citizens, first and foremost. They have the right to participate in free speech and the right to express public opinions. Many physicians I know fear expressing themselves publicly on any platform, including personal ones, for fear of CPSO repercussions. 

It is reasonable to say that when expressing themselves regarding non-medical topics, physicians must not use their title on public platforms to ensure that personal opinions are separated from professional opinions. 

It is reasonable to give explicit examples of what constitutes as inappropriate speech (For example, explicit hate speech is very different than having a well thought out and expressed political opinion). 

Most of the world is nuanced and creating a blanket policy that is open to wide interpretation has made physicians feel they aren't allowed to express any opinions at all. Which is a shame, as physicians are some of the most intelligent members of society and silencing them on matters that don't even relate to the medical profession is a disservice to society.
Physician (including retired)
[February 01, 2024 2:58 AM]
Hate speech IS ALREADY A CRIME IN CANADA. If there is a suspicion a doctor is committing HATE SPEECH they can be charged under the criminal code.

Thus this policy is clearly not to control HATE SPEECH, but rather any selective political or personal speech that is out of favor with CPSO regulators.

It is a power grab to intimidate doctors to agree with one particular political ideology and speak of no others. Like most policies of this nature, it will be weaponized arbitrarily and selectively.

This is how authoritarianism is performed. Through a pervasive culture of fear and intimidation that permeates every part of a person's waking life.
Prefer not to say
[January 18, 2024 5:49 PM]
The CPSO has no place dictating what physicians do in their private lives.
The terms of this policy are also very vague and broad.
You do nothing to protect physicians from abusive patients and yet seek to overreach in such an invasive, inappropriate manner. It is deplorable.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 5:44 PM]
What a physician does outside of a work setting, is none of the CPSO's business, unless a criminal act is undertaken.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 5:20 PM]
Please CPSO, focus your time and efforts doing more productive things rather than micro-managing what is happening in the personal lives of physicians. A patient can submit a complain if they feel their physician is rude? Come on. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a complaint every single day for every single physician working in ON.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 4:47 PM]
Significant concerns with some of the inclusion criteria here. I agree with the definition of the professional context including the workplace and other areas that involve patient focused care or involve learners and teaching.

I specifically have concerns regarding the overbearing of the policy using the term "any situation where a physician is publicly identified as a physician". This could technically be used in settings including disagreement with friends and family on private matters which would not be appropriate for the college to intervene on.

I also believe that the wording of this section is a slippery slope. I recognize the importance as physicians to hold themselves to a high standard; however, this section fails to recognize the physician as a human being that is allowed to make mistakes, learn, and apologize. This is a shame based approach that I don't feel is actually productive and prohibits physicians from being allowed to have and express emotions in their private lives.

I think that this is a relatively large overcall by the college. Physicians are more than just their jobs and I do believe that there should be room to make mistakes and learn. A punitive system that threatens physician jobs due to personal private struggles is not a reasonable or supportive system. This will contribute to burnout and increase rates of stress, anxiety, and other mental health related issues that are already rampant in health care providers on a whole.

I appreciate the college's role to try and set standards for appropriate behaviour in patient care settings. I am currently struggling with the college beginning to move towards focusing on physician's private lives or private dealings.

I also feel that the policy does a poor job on reviewing the process of reporting and steps taken in the event a report occurs. This is a concern as there is no transparency on next steps if a report is made. I am concerned that this will result in a non-uniform and possibly biased approach to managing reports to the college. This fails to address the human bias side of the issue.

Please see my notes on the ambiguity of physicians and the management of staff from the survey. This is a complex issue as staff in clinics are not always hired by the physician and this area is poorly addressed in the current draft policy and accompanying guidance document.

I would like to specifically make mention that I am feeling somewhat let down that the approaches in this document give the air of a punitive approach if physicians are not meeting a standard of perfection. While I recognize this was not likely intended, I suspect that this document will likely see a lot of push back from stakeholders as there is a significant lack of clarity around the review processes and also a lack of ambiguity on setting.

I feel that the CPSO needs to really consider the work place setting as the primary target of the focus of this document on professional behaviour or another environment such as when a physician posts specific medical advice in the role of a physician on social media. To review all social media posts or to have a policy that has open ended suggestions of the policy in force whenever a physician is identified as a physician (e.g. social event with friends where a friend mentions to another individual that I am a physician), this can result in a broad overreach into a physician's private life when they are not operating as a physician. This is a major breach of privacy and not appropriate.

In summary, I cannot support the draft policy in the current state. I do agree with some of the points in the policy but I am concerned about the overreach this policy may have into the private lives of physicians. Furthermore, this policy is really ambiguous in critical areas where there should be more detail. There is also no clear description of processes in place to respond to reported concerns. I feel that this policy will likely result in shame based processes (labelling the physician as a bad person rather than as a person who made a bad decision or mistake) and further perpetuates the process of pushing for perfectionism which is rampant in the practice of medicine and results in higher rates of burnout, depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 2:00 PM]
Completely inappropriate for CPSO to regulate our private lives.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 1:55 PM]
This is a dictatorship level move.
Other health care professional (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 1:45 PM]
As someone in healthcare who works with a lot of doctors, these proposed rules are beyond ridiculous. This is not just overreach but infringes on human rights and free speech. CPSO should immediately withdraw this entire proposal.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 1:44 PM]
Is the CPSO planning to install cameras in physician homes to regulate behavior at home too? Asking for a friend
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 1:34 PM]
professionalism is so important Maybe the cpso could plant a chip in my brain to control my emotions of anger and frustration - program it to block annoyance, frustration, anger. Maybe plant a camera too that records every misstep and collar to shock me at every action the employees of the CPSO deem inappropriate. Teach me good behaviour that you deem appropriate in my personal life.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 10:37 AM]
Gross overreach by the CPSO!
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 10:34 AM]
A physician’s private life needs not be regulated.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 8:53 AM]
I believe the intent of this policy is good but it is too broad in scope.
It is trying too much to determine appropriate of behaviour, especially outside the scope of medical practice.
Personally, physicians, like all individuals, need to be good, decent, kind, considerate, etc. people, but I am not convinced the CPSO (or any other governing medical body) is the one to define and determine these expectations.
Again the CPSO is trying to hard to "prescribe" what is "appropriate" for physicians to be in all facets of their lives.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 8:12 AM]
This policy puts more onus on physicians to manage staff issues over which they may have little control. Patients complain routinely in a variety of environments and physicians may not be in the best place to address patient/staff issues. Private life is still an individual's private life and should not be grounds fir a complaint for fear of promoting a culture of censorship in physicians' personal lives.
Prefer not to say
[January 18, 2024 7:42 AM]
While I agree that physicians should be held to a professional standard in their professional lives , the CPSO has no place regulating their behaviour in their private lives, with the exception being if there is any criminality involved. This is overreach and unacceptable.
If a doctor has an argument with a friend or a sibling this should not be reportable to the CPSO.
Physician (including retired)
[January 18, 2024 1:21 AM]
Being a physician is a job, and I am professional while I am at work or conducting myself with my direct patients and staff.

Outside of work, if I wanted to pursue stand up comedy and in my routine make jokes that are considered ‘rude and a mockery’ I should be able to do so without facing consequences of the job bar puts food on my table. Who is the CPSO to stop me from becoming the next Ken Jeong (successful comedian, actor and physician). This is a huge over reach that will affect the lives of physicians.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 10:19 PM]
Seems quite vague in terms of policy and physicians should not be held to standards above other professionals in their personal life.
Prefer not to say
[January 17, 2024 10:19 PM]
This policy is gross overreach of the CPSO's mandate. Focus on physicians conduct related to their professional practice and patient safety.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 10:13 PM]
I am echoing what many have said here already. While I appreciate that some at the CPSO might feel that someone's private behaviour could be seen to reflect their profession, in reality it speaks more to the fact that we are human. As humans we must be allowed to live and experience life. This includes having opinions, experiencing setback, getting mad, frustrated, and being able to express ourselves in our private day to day lives.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 9:58 PM]
These passages:

-Physician behaviour outside of a professional context that contravenes the standards of professionalism.

-Having "Arguments"

-Comments or actions that are or may be "perceived as harassing" or may contribute to
a negative working environment (including disrespecting boundaries, repeated
unwanted communication, or sexual harassment);

In a period where everyone feels slighted and plays the victim, it's hard not to see how this will lead to widespread self-censorship within the profession and more group-think.

These types of policies are a threat to physician's free speech and ultimately a danger to the profession and good civil discourse. Language is a powerful tool, and using perceived intent to censure a physician, particularly when their livelihood depends on staying in good standing with the college is very a Procrustean approach to discourse.

Physicians already feel treated when expressing political views about public policy in a non-clinical collegial environment.

What's equally concerning is that a group of bureaucrats will now have an opportunity to impose their style of censorship on what an individual says at a dinner party conversation with colleagues, or what they post on Twitter about a policy decision.

This is an affront to the liberal western democratic values.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 9:57 PM]
Please revise this policy. Policing what the CPSO would consider rude or a micro aggression when I'm not working in a professional capacity is far far beyond your scope.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 9:55 PM]
I have concerns about the definition of microagressions and arguments. For a disagreement to be respectful it requires both parties. It is too common these days that patients yell and scream and hurl insults and threats when they don’t get their unreasonable requests. Expecting us to be robots and keep our cool and respectfully respond and explain is disheartening. We are human beings and should be allowed to walk away from these conversations to avoid us from getting to a point of an outburst. If we do that now, the patient complains and the college says we should’ve calmly explained to the patient in a respectful way. And to top it off we have to keep our cool and not react in our personal lives too?! These types of unreasonable behaviour policies is driving doctors away.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 9:27 PM]
Stay in your lane. It’s ridiculous why you think CPSO should be policing our behaviour and disciplining us outside of the workplace or professional interactions. These kinds of expectations lead to physician burn out. Why don’t you work on protecting physicians from ACTUAL harassment from patients? Why is there no system where we can report patients for completely inappropriate behaviour? Why is there never any accountability from the patient side?
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 9:09 PM]
The CPSO has no jurisdiction regulating or policing physician behaviour outside of the workplace unless it was a criminal offence. Physicians are humans too- our job is just that- a job. This policy expecting professionalism and threatening punitive actions for "rude" or "disrespectful" behaviour which could occur outside the workplace is a gross overreach of the CPSO's authority. What physicians do outside the workplace is none of the CPSO's business.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:55 PM]
If you're going to police my behavior outside of work then I am going to require you to pay me an hourly wage even when I'm not performing clinical duties. Otherwise my personal behavior is none of your business.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:50 PM]
This is a complete overreach by the CPSO. Trying to control our personal lives is criminal. We as physicians have the right to freedom of speech like anyone else. We have a right to protect ourselves as well. Heaven forbid those who are actually educated on health topic voice their opinions. No, no, only those who have no idea what they’re talking about should be able to speak freely. The CPSO is so backwards. The CPSO should be creating policies to protect Ontario doctors from “rude” and “unprofessional” behaviour by patients and other staff. Not the other way around. Between the MOH chipping away at our pay and the CPSO chipping away at our autonomy, no wonder nobody wants to work here.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:45 PM]
The application of this policy into the domain of a physicians personal life is an overreach. Most physicians in this province are known to their community members, the occupation is not a secret. Physicians are human like everyone else. We should be upheld to the highest standards in our workplaces, clinics, hospitals and professional settings but our personal lives should be OFF LIMITS
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:40 PM]
As a new physician these policies overstepping to personal life really deters me from recommending the profession to prospective learners and makes me question how long I will sustain in this career if it becomes so overbearing. I can imagine abuse of this policy with malicious intent, creating extra unnecessary stress and resources for investigation of the complaint. In the context of the many other issues in our healthcare system and widespread physician shortage, is this really what we we must focus on and how we want to support our colleagues?
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:15 PM]
How dare you?

I reserve every right to be rude in my personal life.

I reserve every right to commit 'microagressions' in my personal life, because those are subjectively defined by anyone who decides to feel offended.

Stay in your lane, and stay out of my life.
Other health care professional (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 7:18 PM]
This is absurd. Nobody is perfect. You can’t control people everywhere. This will further cause people to avoid rural locations.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 7:11 PM]
Agree with my colleagues that these policies are gross overreach of CPSO dressed under professional behaviour.
Physicians should be able to keep their professional and personal lives separate without fear of repercussions.
It is becoming increasingly challenging to be able to practice medicine and these policies are contributing to the burn out that physicians are facing. Very unfortunate indeed. Maybe one of the many reasons more and more physicians are choosing to leave Ontario for elsewhere.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 7:10 PM]
The proposed rules will be a violation of our rights.

They also very clearly will impact minorities and women who certain patients will view as being "rude" with zero objective reasoning.

This is extreme overreach.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 6:59 PM]
I fully support & understand CPSO regulating professionalism within work environment. But outside of work I have a private life which I would like to keep private. I totally don't support or understand CPSO regulating my life outside of work.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 6:56 PM]
Please keep my personal life personal. Please don't police us. This is overeach.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 6:09 PM]
Do not try to regulate our lives outside our practices. Our private lives are private. Thank you
Prefer not to say
[January 17, 2024 2:47 PM]
Policing legal speech and conduct of physicians outside of a professional or work environment will result in a chilling effect by which well meaning physicians who care to enact social change for the betterment of their patients will self censor in fear of a complaint from an unrelated external party.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 2:25 PM]
Allowing for discipline of vague, subjective "rude" behaviour in a physician's personal life OUTSIDE of a work environment is a completely overreach of the CPSO. Our personal lives are private and should not be subject to the CPSO. In a personal, private capacity, our actions unless grossly negligent or criminal have nothing to do with the CPSO. This wide net that this policy aims to catch is completely unacceptable. I fully support professionalism of physicians in our workplaces, clinics, and hospitals. What happens in our homes and public places is none of the CPSO's business.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 10:51 AM]
Listing the word “rude” as a potential breach of professional conduct is one thing, but to then say being “rude” outside of your job and listing that as a potential for a cpso complaint should not be part of this guideline.

Physicians are humans, we are not gods and we are not perfect. Rude is a subjective term. The cpso should not be saying they will potentially allow a college complaint for someone accused of being rude outside of the realm of medicine.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 8:01 AM]
The inclusion of “micro-aggressions” is too vague, even with the definition given. This is a changing landscape and is too broad and dynamic to be included in the policy.
Similarly, the use of “or may be perceived as” is much too vague/broad. Subjective perception should be avoided as much as possible, as such ambiguity will lead to increased unsubstantiated complaints.
Physician (including retired)
[January 17, 2024 7:14 AM]
Good morning,

I think the physician behaviour draft could and will be subject to interpretation.
I think it should also include a note on new physicians, foreign physicians, and locums physicians entering a practice.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 10:45 PM]
Good evening 

Sent from my iPhonedo you really want to hear the truth??,,
Because I don’t believe you can handle the truth the truth is is that physicians and their staff are being abused physically verbally and mentally every day all day long and the excuse to college girls is that the patient is the one with the issue no, the patient is now coming in demanding things that we cannot give them because the government won’t help us in the college, particularly the college is in bed with the government 
Sincerely yours concern member who I know you won’t listen to
Prefer not to say
[January 16, 2024 6:02 PM]
Physician behaviour outside of a professional context that contravenes
the standards of professionalism3 may be considered unprofessional under this policy

What does this mean? If someone has an argument at home, with a partner, with a sibling, with a neighbour that they could be reported? Did physicians sign over their life and autonomy when they became physicians?
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 1:46 PM]
I think CPSO should stick to regulating workplace behaviour only. This risks infringing on free speech rights which are guaranteed by the Charter; that a small minority of the population may be offended by (even if objectively, nothing offensive is said).
Some people may choose to be offended by the smallest comments or body language that no reasonable person would find remotely offensive in any capacity. This happens a lot. CPSO should not be acting in a punitive manner over one sided personal matters where the doctor did absolutely nothing wrong. In this context, any investigation fully counts as punitive action as the process itself is punitive.
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 12:20 PM]
The ideas are well meaning here, but this policy opens physicians up to unwarranted complaints. It is very easy for a staff person to feel uncomfortable or intimidated by an authority figure without abusive conduct having occurred, and this draft policy is going to penalize doctors who aren’t perfect at interpersonal conduct but have conducted themselves in a reasonable way. It is much better if clearly abusive conduct is listed an placed off limits, without the vague well meaning statements that are open to misinterpretations by staff people who have for example strong negative feelings towards authority figures.
Member of the public
[January 10, 2024 2:29 AM]
Note: Some content has been edited in accordance with our posting guidelines.
I already filled it out.

My unprofessional doctor has gaslit me for years, and now my only options are to sell my house to seek a consultation and surgery with a neurosurgeon out of province. [redacted] My doctor is biased, and I believe does not treat me well because I am trans. I took myself off his roster, but unfortunately he has coloured me a certain way throughout my file, I will be hard pressed to get a new doctor to know me with only 20 minutes allowed in an appointment.

[redacted]
Physician (including retired)
[December 27, 2023 2:46 PM]
1. Thank-you for this opportunity.  You have outlined nicely our social contract to patients and society with the emphasis on patient trust, integrity and ethics.  But, perhaps, as one writer noted------how far do we go outside our office?----giving to charity, political activity etc.----a delicate balance. Perhaps a bit shorter and more precision here.-----Our individual patients come first.
2. Much of medicine, and particularly CME,  is dominated by ‘big pharma’ and a small number of our colleagues are making  ‘big bucks’ by their association with big pharma.  This results in greater costs and biased science. Disclosures and similar measures have done nothing to correct this ever growing problem.  I believe industry relationship regulations, and ethical warnings,  should be included.
Physician (including retired)
[December 14, 2023 6:04 PM]
Defining what is and is not a microaggression can be very subjective. How will the CPSO ensure that reasonable physicians who act in good faith are not effectively harassed by overly sensitive complainants? As per a previous comment, people do not have the right to 'not be offended'.
Physician (including retired)
[December 14, 2023 10:08 AM]
This document must include issues around staffing shortages, inexperience etc.

Physicians are responsible for patient care.

Although staff may feel badly, giving the same instructions or orders repeatedly when they are not followed is not rude or bullying.
Physician (including retired)
[December 14, 2023 8:19 AM]
Professional Context section
---
Here it states that a professional context includes any situation where a physician is publicly identified as such. This essentially means that every context is a professional context because the label "MD" or "doctor" is usual. The increasing censorship of physicians acting in their roles as active and concerned citizens outside of the workplace is concerning. CPSO should not overreach and try to control MD behavior outside of the workplace.

Unprofessional behavior section
---
Unprofessional behavior has the following concerning descriptors that I find objectionable:
-rude
-disrespectful
-insulting
-arguments

These terms are often (?usually) completely determined by the recipient of a communication, not the deliverer. Some people and cultures are more forthright. Likewise, some people are easily offended, insulted, and dislike being challenged. As such, these people might interpret communication that is reasonable as being "rude, disrespectful, insulting, or argumentative". People do not have a right to "not be offended", nor do they have a right to not be challenged. An example would be that some people might find a classical New Yorker as being "in their face" when complaining about something. I worry greatly about the most sensitive people in society determining what the standard of communication should be for everyone. Nationally and internationally there exists a big backlash against this kind of thing. I think best that CPSO stick to behaviors that are obviously unacceptable and not those that are in the grey area.

What is missing from the unprofessional behavior section are willful actions that delay or otherwise thwart patient access to care. For example, physicians that make decisions that actively restrict access to resources required to care for patients. For example, delaying care when on call, cancelling surgeries that are expected to run 20 min over time, etc...
Physician (including retired)
[January 16, 2024 2:12 PM]
All above-mentioned comments are important.
The question that was asked in this review of this policy was if it makes it clear what unprofessional behavior is?
Intuitively everyone knows what it is when a red line is crossed however the ambiguous terminology that have been mentioned in previous response creates room for abuse and misused while also open to interpretation.
In recent months support for one group of people while degrading or advocating for extermination of other people by colleagues led to a significant loss of trust in these individuals from both patients and colleagues.
This has not been addressed by CPSO in this policy.
Physician (including retired)
[December 12, 2023 4:12 PM]
For the purposes of the anti-retaliation rule, the policy should specify that "staff" refers to any person in the workplace including those who are not employees of the physician or their health care institution. For instance, most physicians are not employees of the hospital; the term "staff" may imply that they are not included in these protections.
Physician (including retired)
[January 22, 2024 5:15 PM]
“Physician behaviour outside of a professional context that contravenes
the standards of professionalism3 may be considered unprofessional under this policy”
Who do you think you are. You cannot police people’s behaviour in their private life unless it is criminal and even then in a secondary role. We are first and foremost citizens of Canada with all the rights and freedoms that comes with that status. Cpso will not be telling me I can’t defend myself, state my opinion or swear in my private life so no, back to the drawing board. Think twice before you print this nonsense.