Canadian Insurance News

Re: Quiet deals shelter problem doctors, Feb. 28

Quiet deals shelter problem doctors, Feb. 28

The “backroom deals” that were struck after serious medical errors were made are not only an affront to Ontario citizens but also lack the transparency and accountability involving medical practitioners who must be held responsible for their transgressions.

It is sad that the public has no idea what is going on under the innocuous sounding College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) terminology “undertakings” – especially as patients’ lives and well being are dependent on them being able to make informed health care decisions.

Medical negligence ranging from botched surgeries, sexual abuse of patients and improper prescribing of narcotics should not be swept under the carpet by the college. This is totally unacceptable, more so when the public is kept in the dark about rationale and context.

It is even more distressing to learn that Dr. Charles Smith, the province’s former pediatric forensic pathologist, made serious mistakes in 20 death investigations that led to people being criminally charged, convicted or otherwise implicated in the deaths of children. Where was the necessary oversight and how did the college enter into undertakings dropping the investigations regarding such unlawful behaviour by the coroner and deputy coroner, who shielded Smith from proper scrutiny?

While CPSO staff had earlier proposed amending a bylaw, in order to allow more information about undertakings to be posted on the register, this welcome recommendation was turned down by the college’s governing council.

Such unfortunate events and the lack of adequate discipline shake public confidence in our health system and cannot be deemed to protect the public interest. As there is no law prohibiting the college from being more transparent, it is hoped that this necessary openness by our gatekeepers in the future will translate into greater responsibility and accountability from Ontario’s practicing physicians.

Rudy Fernandes, Mississauga

The legacy of coroner Charles Smith: People did not always believe that professional bodies like the law society or the medical association were preoccupied principally with protecting some of their own members.

Common sense and experience demonstrated that, by and large, these bodies were mainly concerned with the protection of the public. Public proceedings against doctors and lawyers who were not monsters regularly came and continue to come before the courts for adjudication on issues of professional conduct, sometimes resulting in suspensions, acquittals and or loss of licenses.

I fear the case of doctor Charles Smith, the coroner who was responsible for so many convictions of the innocent and the resulting thorough inquiry by Mr. Justice Goudge, in particular, dramatically and understandably changed public attitudes.

A great deal of work is needed to be done to restore public confidence in those bodies, which, by and large still are dedicated to serving the public interest. It will help a great deal if they try harder to recruit more younger and non-establishment figures to serve on them.

Romain Pitt, Toronto

Accountability at Ontario’s colleges is a serious concern to Ontario’s 60,000 injured auto accident victims every year who attend third party, privately paid medical assessments.

Ontario’s insurers consistently spend more dollars on medical assessments by their for-hire assessors than they do on treatments for injured motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims. These medical assessments and reports are often substandard or biased and are used to deny legitimate claims and ultimately are used by Ontario’s insurers to download costs to public support systems.

College sanctions for private vendor assessors are rare and always confidential. HPARB appeals of college decisions adds another layer of secrecy by publicly providing only the initials of often abusive doctors who are sometimes even repeat offenders.

MVA victims in Ontario are at considerable risk for harm at the hands of physicians who make their living by denying legitimate injuries exist and it’s something the CPSO and Ontario’s insurers would rather keep a secret.

Transparency isn’t the entire answer but it is a good start.

Rhona DesRoches, board chair, FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

I don’t get it. If misconduct cannot be proven conclusively, why would a doctor agree to any discipline at all, let alone this “undertaking” nonsense that prevents them from ever practicing again? You’d think an accused doctor would welcome an open platform to air their concerns and protect their reputation. So this reads more like the avoidance of potential lawsuits against all the parties concerned.

Self preservation.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

Source: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2015/03/06/md-backroom-deals-an-affront.html