discipline summaries
There is no dispute that an examination of Ms . Y ’ s heart and lungs was clinically indicated ; both experts agree on this point . Ms . Y referred to a grazing of her nipple , suggesting that the touching in question was more likely to have been inadvertent . The Committee found that the evidence with respect to Ms . Y ’ s allegations does not meet the requisite standard to make a finding of either sexual abuse or disgraceful , dishonourable , or unprofessional conduct and therefore these allegations are not proven .
Ms . Z With respect to the examination of Ms . Z , it is common ground that he touched her left breast with one of his hands . The Committee finds , however , that it has not been proven that this touching was not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided . It is reasonable to conclude that proper auscultation of the apex required Ms . Z ’ s breast to be displaced . There was no suggestion that her nipple was touched . This touching lacks a clear sexual character as distinct from the four patients whose breasts and nipples were touched underneath their bras . The Committee finds the allegation that Dr . Peirovy sexually abused Ms . Z by touching her breast in a sexual manner during this examination was not proven . Dr . Peirovy demonstrated egregiously poor judgment in suggesting to Ms . Z that they could see each other socially , in the context of just having compromised her privacy on account of the ill-advised fashion in which he had examined her . Dr . Peirovy appears to have been completely oblivious with respect to the real meaning of boundaries in a physician-patient relationship . He acted in a way which suggests he viewed his patient as a legitimate future object of his social , romantic , and / or sexual interests . He appears to have had no real understanding of the power imbalance in the doctor-patient relationship or , if he did , his understanding did not deter him in this instance . He knew that doctors are not permitted to date their patients , but he appeared to believe that boundaries would be dissolved by simply terminating the doctor-patient relationship in writing . He completely misunderstood Ms . Z ’ s willingness to sign a note to that affect as indicating her interest in him as a prospective social or sexual partner . The Committee found that Dr . Peirovy ’ s conduct with respect to this issue was clearly disgraceful , dishonourable , or unprofessional . The Committee also found , however , that it did not amount to sexual abuse . There was no conversation or proposition of a sexual nature . What Dr . Peirovy was proposing was the possibility that he and Ms . Z could see each other socially in the future , admitting that he found her interesting and attractive . He acknowledged that , if he had established a relationship with her , sexual activity might have occurred at some point . He did not follow through with his stated intention to call Ms . Z . There was , in fact , no further contact between the two . The Committee observes that many initial social encounters , even if one had occurred in this case , do not progress to sexual relationships . The Committee was not persuaded that Dr . Peirovy ’ s tentative overtures towards Ms Z amounted to behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature .
Suitability to Practice There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that Dr . Peirovy has been found guilty of two counts of assault , as indicated above . Counsel for Dr . Peirovy argued that , in the circumstances of this case , the offences are not relevant to his suitability to practise . It is submitted that the findings of guilt for simple assault were premised on a technical breach of the Criminal Code related to Dr . Peirovy ’ s failure to obtain specific consent from his patients to place his stethoscope on or near the patients ’ nipples , in the context of an otherwise appropriate and clinically indicated physical examination . In essence , counsel for Dr . Peirovy argued the findings of guilt arise on account of a technicality and , because Dr . Peirovy ’ s actions were blameless in all other respects , this should not be relevant to his suitability to practise . The Committee did not accept this submission . The Committee found that the manner in which Dr . Peirovy touched his young female patients during examination is entirely relevant to his suitability to practise . The absence of patient consent to this touching , during these particularly sensitive physical examinations , cannot be dismissed as a mere technicality . The Court has found that one aspect of Dr . Peirovy ’ s examination of these patients amounted to a criminal assault . It is in fact difficult for the Committee to imagine a clearer example of an offence
70
Dialogue Issue 1 , 2017