Understand the Culture in Which You Practise Hyperthermia: Are ...

(b) failed to provide the College with
the professional misconduct findings
of the CPSO? The Panel was not to
decide whether the Member engaged
in sexual abuse of a patient while
practising pharmacy.
Failure to Report Findings
of Misconduct
The College presented evidence that
the 2007 Pharmacist Annual Fee
Form asked members the following
question: “In the past year have you
been charged and/or found guilty of
an offence under any Act regulating
the practice of pharmacists or relating
to the sale of drugs, or relating to
any criminal offence?” This question
was left blank by the Member, although
he had completed other portions
of the form and had signed the
document, which he dated February
2, 2007. The College presented evidence
that the Member would have
received a follow-up letter indicating
that his form was incomplete. The
College apparently never received a
response from the Member to this
letter replying “Yes” or “No” to the
question about criminal and drug-related
offences.
The College also presented evidence
that it was not aware of the
Member’s discipline history with
CPSO until it received an anonymous
telephone call in June, 2007, indicating
that the Member had had his
licence to practise medicine revoked
by the CPSO for sexual abuse. The
Panel was directed to the decision(s)
of the Discipline Committee of the
CPSO.
While the College’s witnesses
were not subject to cross-examination,
the Panel accepted their evidence as
credible and believed that the documents
presented not only spoke for
themselves, but that they were explained,
and their contents supported,
by the witnesses. The Panel
found that the Member did fail to
provide the College with the findings
of professional misconduct by
the CPSO as alleged, and that failure
does constitute professional misconduct
as alleged in the Notice of
Hearing.
Relevance to Suitability to
Practice Pharmacy
With respect to the relevance of
these offences to the practice of
pharmacy, the Panel considered (i)
how the revocation of the Member’s
license for sexual abuse of a patient
at the CPSO and his failure to report
it were relevant to his suitability to
practise pharmacy, and (ii) how that
should lead the Panel to conclude that
this behaviour was disgraceful, dishonourable
or unprofessional before
this College.
The College argued that the connection
between the Member’s conduct
as a physician and the impact on
him as a pharmacist was the concurrency
of these roles. The Member
operated his pharmacy practice out
of his medical practice. When he was
operating as a physician, he was essentially
operating as a pharmacist.
He was not wearing different hats.
He was engaged in both health professions
simultaneously, and when
he engaged in misconduct of a sexual
nature with a patient as a physician,
that must impact on his status as a
pharmacist. Counsel argued that an
act committed in another health profession
should be considered a breach
of pharmacy standards before this
College.
The Panel reviewed several past
Discipline Committee and court decisions
concerning the interpretation
of the misconduct provision alleging
that a member “engaged in conduct
or performed an act relevant to the
practice of pharmacy that, having regard
to all the circumstances, would
reasonably be regarded as disgraceful,
dishonourable or unprofessional.”
The Panel observed that the cases
illustrate that prior discipline panels of
this College and the court, in general,
have taken a very broad approach to
the meaning of the phrase “relevant
to the practice of pharmacy” in the
misconduct provision.
The Panel concluded that the
Member’s conduct as a physician
must impact on his suitability as a
pharmacist. The two roles/professional
designations are intertwined on
the facts of this case. He was physician
and pharmacist at the same
time. If his behaviour in one professional
context brings that profession
into disrepute – which the CPSO
revocation certainly did in regard to
the Member’s status as a physician
– it must bring the other professional
designation into disrepute as well.
Sexual abuse of anyone is degrading
and demeaning behaviour. But when
it is practised by a health professional
with a patient, the Panel believed,
the behaviour is all the more disturbing
and unprofessional, as it exploits
the health provider/patient relationship,
plays on an imbalance of power,
and breaches a fundamental trust on
pharmacyconnection • July/August 2009
33