A doctor previously convicted of sexual
assault had a gender-based restriction placed on him for reasons the
College won’t make public.
A pediatrician who has
worked in Mississauga and Sarnia is still practising after being
convicted of sexually assaulting women related to his work.
Dr. Kunwar Raj Singh
also has unrelated gender- and age-based restrictions placed on his
practice, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons won’t say why.
His case raises
questions about why a doctor who has been convicted of sexual assault
linked to his work is able to practise at all.
Roz Roach, a
psychotherapist who sat on a provincial task force on sexual abuse of
patients, says given Singh’s criminal conviction, it’s “scary” that he’s
still treating patients.
“He shouldn’t be
practising and his licence should have been revoked,” said Roach, who
runs a centre for women and children who are victims of domestic
violence in Scarborough.
Singh did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
An office manager at a
Mississauga walk-in clinic linked to Singh said he hadn’t worked there
in years. The clinic is still listed as one of Singh’s practice
locations on the college registry.
There are 21 physicians in Ontario who have gender-based restrictions on practising,
a Star investigation recently found. Twenty are male doctors restricted
from treating female patients. One is a male doctor restricted from
seeing male patients.
Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins recently ordered a review of the decades-old legislation that governs all 23 of the province’s regulatory colleges.
Singh was convicted of 16 counts of sexual assault and indecent assault in 1991, for which he received two years’ probation.
The college’s
disciplinary committee found Singh guilty of professional misconduct
over the same incidents related to his criminal convictions, college
spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said. According to the committee’s 1991
decision, the committee dealt with 13 specific incidents involving eight
hospital employees and two mothers of Singh’s patients between 1976 and
1990.
The college found
Singh made “inappropriate personal and suggestive comments, touched or
squeezed the breasts of the victims or kissed the person against her
will or grabbed or rubbed their buttocks or legs.”
The committee
suspended Singh’s licence for six months, though the college asked that
it be revoked. Clarke said the law only calls for mandatory revocation
of a licence when “sexual abuse of a current patient is proven.”
In Singh’s case, the victims were hospital employees and patients’ mothers.
In its decision, which
was sent to the Star by the college but is not included on Singh’s page
in the online registry, the committee wrote: “Although his actions are a
clear violation of ordinary social conduct as well as professional
behaviour, this case does not fit into the category of sexual violation
or exploitation of a patient/doctor relationship and this weighed
significantly in the Committee’s decision not to revoke Dr. Singh’s
licence as requested by the College.”
Medical malpractice
lawyer Paul Harte says Singh’s case is particularly “troubling” not only
because of his sexual assault convictions, but because three years
later he was found to have falsified a document to register with the
Medical Board of Trinidad and Tobago, according to a disciplinary panel
decision document. His licence was then suspended for three months.
“Those are two very significant breaches,” said Harte.
A decade after Singh’s
criminal convictions, he entered into a secret agreement with the
college forcing him to have a female health professional with him if he
is interacting with female patients or female caregivers of patients.
The 2003 restriction,
unrelated to his criminal convictions, came after allegations were
referred to the college’s discipline committee, said Clarke.
The allegations, which
Clarke said were related to patients but did not include sexual
touching, were withdrawn in October 2003 “as there was no reasonable
prospect of a finding.”
She did not respond to followup questions on the nature of the allegations.
The voluntary
agreement was updated in 2013, restricting Singh from treating anyone
over the age of 18. It is not clear why. Clarke said there were no new
allegations, but “the college may conduct investigations based on a
variety of information about the physician’s clinical practice.”
A prospective patient
searching for Singh on the college’s public registry will only see the
two conditions from the updated 2013 agreement.
Singh’s registry history under 2003 simply says: “Transfer of class of certificate to: Restricted certificate.”
There are no other details.
Clarke said keeping
the reasons behind the agreement “unavailable to the public” is mandated
by law, noting the terms and conditions on a doctor’s certification
must be made public, but that the law does not provide for a “summary of
details” to be made public.
Roach said having a female health professional supervise doesn’t necessarily make the environment any safer.
“They themselves — they can become victims,” said Roach, who started her career as a nurse.
Clarke said Singh’s chaperones have “voluntarily agreed” to act in the role and are fully aware of Singh’s discipline history.
“It is desirable to
have a regulated health professional act in this role as they are aware
of the expected standards of practice, and are capable of fulfilling
this function appropriately and completely,” she said.
When Singh tried to
get back hospital privileges in Sarnia in 1992, nurses successfully
rallied to get Singh banned from St. Joseph’s Health Centre, collecting
2,600 signatures on a petition arguing their workplace should be free of
harassment.
With files from Paul Moloney, Colin Graf and The Canadian Press
Source: http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/11/15/college_wont_explain_restrictions_put_on_pediatrician_convicted_of_sex_assault.html
Source: http://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/2014/11/15/college_wont_explain_restrictions_put_on_pediatrician_convicted_of_sex_assault.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments.
Canadian Insurance News does not endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that we have the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever.