discipline summaries
on Dr. Redhead’s certificate of registration that, at his
own expense, he shall successfully complete Collegefacilitated instruction in professionalism/ethics no later
than one year from the date of the Committee’s Order.
The only differences between the parties were with
respect to the length of the suspension and the amount
of costs that Dr. Redhead should be ordered to pay. The
College asked for a six-month suspension, and that Dr.
Redhead should be ordered to pay costs of $40,140,
within 30 days. Dr. Redhead submitted that he should
be suspended for four months, and should be required
to pay costs of $11,865, within 60 days.
In reaching its conclusions, the Committee considered carefully the nature and severity of the conduct by
Dr. Redhead that the Committee found to be disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. Dr. Redhead’s
misconduct in this matter was serious. The Committee
found that he engaged in a sexual affair with a person
who had been his patient until about one month before
the affair began. This was not a case of an attendance on
a patient in an emergency room for a minor matter such
as a laceration or sprained ankle, involving minimal
personal interaction with the patient. Ms X was cared
for by Dr. Redhead for a mental illness characterized
by anxiety, depression and suicidality. Dr. Redhead’s
five attendances on Ms X within a short period of time
included significant exploration of her mental state,
her thoughts, her past history and her circumstances.
Dr. Redhead twice admitted her to hospital, attended
her there, and repeatedly assessed her risk of suicide.
Although his care for her was not continuous and other
physicians were involved in it, Dr. Redhead engaged in
significant therapeutic interventions with Ms X.
The Committee found that Dr. Redhead knew of Ms
X’s troubled past history and was fully aware of the extent of her emotional problems. While the Committee
found that Dr. Redhead did not provide intense counseling or psychotherapy to Ms X, it did find that Dr.
Redhead treated a patient in significant mental distress
with both words and medications. She was his patient
on those occasions, and he was responsible for her care.
The fact that he did not bill for psychotherapy or counseling for her does not detract from this conclusion.
The Committee also found that Dr. Redhead was fully
aware that Ms X was a highly vulnerable patient and that
there was a significant power imbalance in their relationship, both by virtue of their previous doctor-patient
80
Dialogue Issue 4, 2014
relationship and also because of his awareness of her
particular vulnerabilities. His provision of gifts of money
and drugs to her was exploitative of her vulnerability and
augmented the power imbalance between them.
The Committee read carefully the numerous letters of
reference written on behalf of Dr. Redhead that spoke
to his medical skills, his usual professional behaviour
and his community engagement. It did not give the
reference letters a great deal of weight in its determination of the penalty: the fact that Dr. Redhead may be a
good physician or a good citizen or that he may otherwise have behaved professionally does not detract from
the seriousness of his misconduct in this case. Many
of the letters refer to the effect of his being suspended
on medical care in an under-serviced community. The
Committee cannot and did not allow that fact to influence the determination of penalty. Egregious behaviour
that takes advantage of a vulnerable person is no less
egregious because it takes place in an underserviced setting. Finally, two of the letters were virtually identical,
which the Committee found to be troubling.
The Committee felt that a four-month suspension
did not adequately take into account the fact that Dr.
Redhead had engaged in sexual relations with a highly
vulnerable patient within a very short time of having
c \