Dialogue Volume 13 Issue 4 2017 - Page 81

DISCIPLINE SUMMARIES agreed on the joint statements of facts and penalty and presented them to the Committee. The proposed penalty consisted of a reprimand and $5,000 in costs. The joint submission took into account the fact of Dr. Lucas’ advanced age and the fact that he signed an undertaking never to engage in the practice of medicine again. In determining whether the proposed penalty was appropriate, the Committee considered the relevant penalty principles and aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors in this case were that Dr. Lucas was administering anesthetic to highly vul- nerable patients and exposing them to several risks. He failed to maintain the standard of practice in several areas, including his preoperative assessments, his documentation, and his unacceptable infectious disease control practices. The mitigating factors were that Dr. Lucas admit- ted to the facts and that he failed to maintain the standard of care in his treatment of patients. He accepted full responsibility for his actions. Dr. Lucas’ admission spared witnesses from testifying and saved the College the time and expense of conducting a contested hearing. Also, Dr. Lucas signed an undertaking to never practise medicine again in any jurisdiction. If Dr. Lu- cas had not signed an undertaking to never practise again in this or any other jurisdiction, the Com- mittee would have imposed a more severe penalty, given the unacceptable fact that he exposed multiple patients to potential infection. Dr. Lucas’ undertak- ing was of utmost importance in this case to protect the public. Further, Dr. Lucas’ advanced age was seen as a mitigating factor in that it is highly unlikely that he would ever even consider working as a physician again. This was reinforced by his undertaking to never practise again. The College takes very seriously its role to protect the public from doctors who fail to maintain the standard of practice and put patients at risk of harm. The need for specific deterrence and rehabilitation in this case are irrelevant given Dr. Lucas’ advanced age and the fact that he will never practise medicine again. The proposed penalty addresses the relevant penalty principles, including: 1. Th  e protection of the public, in that Dr. Lucas has signed an undertaking to never work again as a physician in any jurisdiction. 2. G  eneral deterrence, in that the public reprimand serves to deter other members of the profession from engaging in similar misconduct. 3. Th  e Committee was satisfied that the proposed penalty, in light of the facts of this case and Dr. Lucas’ undertaking to never practise medicine again, serves to maintain public confidence in the profession and its ability to govern itself in the public interest. ORDER In summary, the Discipline Committee ordered and directed that Dr. Lucas appear before the panel to be reprimanded; and pay to the College costs in the amount of $5,000. For complete details of the Order, please see the full decision at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Find a Doctor and enter the doctor’s name. At the conclusion of the hearing, Dr. Lucas waived his right to an appeal and the Committee administered the public reprimand. Full decisions are available online at www.cpso.on.ca. Select Doctor Search and enter the doctor’s name. ISSUE 4, 2017 DIALOGUE 81