Advertisement

Mark Quinn: Why all the secrecy surrounding allegations of doctor misconduct?

A recent physician misconduct hearing raises questions about secrecy and how much power the provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons gives people who make complaints against doctors.

In February, a tribunal appointed by the college wrapped up a hearing that began last year.

When reporters arrived at the hearing in St. John's in December, they were told they could not record images or sound. The first order of business was to bar the public and media from the hearing.

Now, months later, after the matter has been resolved, the college isn't saying anything about what happened. We don't know the name of the accused physician and we don't know what he was accused of doing.

College tight-lipped

Sources tell CBC the doctor was found "not guilty" of the allegation he was facing and he wasn't sanctioned, but the College isn't denying or confirming anything.

An official has only said: "The college will not be publishing a summary of the decision in this case."

Why is the college being so tight-lipped? Because the person who made the complaint requested a closed hearing. We don't know why they requested that and we don't know why it was granted.

The process is not transparent.

The college that's mandated to protect the public is essentially saying "trust us." We can't decide for ourselves if the complaint should have gone to a hearing.

We don't know what happened in this case, but is it also possible that we wouldn't know if a patient had made a false accusation against a physician?

Would we know if the hearing was held because a patient made a false accusation to harm a doctor who refused to prescribe unnecessary drugs?

Different from the court system

It raises two questions: Is the college giving too much power to a person who makes a complaint? And is it fair to an accused physician for the college to say nothing after a complaint has been dismissed?

The college says its hands are tied because it can't order a publication ban. If it wants to protect the identity of a complainant, its only option is to exclude the public from a hearing and hold it behind closed doors

It's not the way things work in our court system.

In court, if a judge believes an complainant's identity should be protected, for example in the case of a sexual assault trial, a publication ban is ordered.

The hearing remains open but it is illegal to publish the accuser's name. The trial remains open; anyone can see what charge the accused is facing.

Secretive process could harm an innocent doctor's reputation

Because the trial remains open, the public also knows what evidence is presented to prove the guilt or innocence of the accused and what the court finds.

In that case, members of the public can decide for themselves if the complaint should have gone to a trial, if the trial was fair, and they can agree or disagree with its outcome.

People who live in the accused doctor's community may know that he was called before a tribunal to face a complaint. If the complaint was dismissed, does the doctor deserve to have his or her name cleared publicly?

The college receives more than 100 complaints each year. Some years none of those complaints make it to a public hearing.

Since last fall, the college has held four complaint hearings. Two of them were open to the public, but only because that's what the complainants wanted.