Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums
Sign in to follow this  
insomnias

Doctors with revoked US licenses apparently still able to work in Canada

Recommended Posts

I stumbled upon this piece in the Star: http://projects.thestar.com/doctor-discipline/

What I want to know: how is it that we need to submit a criminal record check to get into med, get into residency, and presumably to get licensed after residency, but these people (at least those who committed crimes) still manage to slip through the cracks? One would think that the RCMP would at the very least check Interpol/the US databases when doing vulnerable sector checks. It's interesting because I have a colleague who's trying to get licensed as a doctor in an EU country after having worked in the UK and an African country, and he needs to produce current (i.e. within 3 months) criminal record checks from every place he's lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butterfly_ said:

I think doctors with a revoked license shouldn’t be able to work anywhere unless they’ve been properly disciplined and re-trained. 

It’s a serious public safety issue :unsure:

Actually, your tribalism and collectivist mentality is a serious public safety issue. Let's stop individuals from hurting society from a delusional sense of fear for safety of that society.

Every case is different and has different facts. Every regulatory body has different laws and different mandates and different ways of looking at evidence. A physician found guilty in one regulatory body can be found not guilty in another regulatory body based on the same facts. But you do not care about that. You do not care about nuance. You do not care about unpacking different contextual situations and facts of each case. You only care about accepting without skepticism the decision of one regulatory body and then imposing it on other regulatory bodies and considering it revealed word from up high. You do not care if that regulatory body which returned a guilty finding was biased. You only care about living in supposed and imagined fear to public safety.

You only care that if a physician's license has been revoked in one jurisdiction, that physician should not be able to work in ANY other jurisdiction ever even if this other jurisdiction cleared him to not be a public safety threat. On one hand you accept unilaterally the decision of regulatory body which revoked the license, on the other hand you want to demolish the regulatory body in new jurisdiction which gives this physician the license to work after following their own due process.

I personally do not care if my physician is a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. As long as he/she has paid his/her debt to society after finishing their sentence and they are providing me the best healthcare I can receive without harming me, I am fine with their working as a physician. Just like I do not care if my female physician fucks other females in her bedroom or if she is a trans woman with a penis.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mrsarcastic99 said:

Actually, your tribalism and collectivist mentality is a serious public safety issue. Let's stop individuals from hurting society from a delusional sense of fear for safety of that society.

Every case is different and has different facts. Every regulatory body has different laws and different mandates and different ways of looking at evidence. A physician found guilty in one regulatory body can be found not guilty in another regulatory body based on the same facts. But you do not care about that. You do not care about nuance. You do not care about unpacking different contextual situations and facts of each case. You only care about accepting without skepticism the decision of one regulatory body and then imposing it on other regulatory bodies and considering it revealed word from up high. You do not care if that regulatory body which returned a guilty finding was biased. You only care about living in supposed and imagined fear to public safety.

You only care that if a physician's license has been revoked in one jurisdiction, that physician should not be able to work in ANY other jurisdiction ever even if this other jurisdiction cleared him to not be a public safety threat. On one hand you accept unilaterally the decision of regulatory body which revoked the license, on the other hand you want to demolish the regulatory body in new jurisdiction which gives this physician the license to work after following their own due process.

I personally do not care if my physician is a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. As long as he/she has paid his/her debt to society after finishing their sentence and they are providing me the best healthcare I can receive without harming me, I am fine with their working as a physician. Just like I do not care if my female physician fucks other females in her bedroom or if she is a trans woman with a penis.

 

 

Sorry you had to write this essay. I think you missed the second part of what I said: “unless they’ve been properly disciplined and retrained.”

Thanks for your contribution though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrsarcastic99 said:

Actually, your tribalism and collectivist mentality is a serious public safety issue. Let's stop individuals from hurting society from a delusional sense of fear for safety of that society.

Every case is different and has different facts. Every regulatory body has different laws and different mandates and different ways of looking at evidence. A physician found guilty in one regulatory body can be found not guilty in another regulatory body based on the same facts. But you do not care about that. You do not care about nuance. You do not care about unpacking different contextual situations and facts of each case. You only care about accepting without skepticism the decision of one regulatory body and then imposing it on other regulatory bodies and considering it revealed word from up high. You do not care if that regulatory body which returned a guilty finding was biased. You only care about living in supposed and imagined fear to public safety.

You only care that if a physician's license has been revoked in one jurisdiction, that physician should not be able to work in ANY other jurisdiction ever even if this other jurisdiction cleared him to not be a public safety threat. On one hand you accept unilaterally the decision of regulatory body which revoked the license, on the other hand you want to demolish the regulatory body in new jurisdiction which gives this physician the license to work after following their own due process.

I personally do not care if my physician is a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. As long as he/she has paid his/her debt to society after finishing their sentence and they are providing me the best healthcare I can receive without harming me, I am fine with their working as a physician. Just like I do not care if my female physician fucks other females in her bedroom or if she is a trans woman with a penis.

 

 

Ummmm I for one do care if my physician was a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. And I do not think they should be allowed to practice medicine if they committed one of the aforementioned crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F508 said:

Ummmm I for one do care if my physician was a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. And I do not think they should be allowed to practice medicine if they committed one of the aforementioned crimes.

Completely agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, F508 said:

Ummmm I for one do care if my physician was a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. And I do not think they should be allowed to practice medicine if they committed one of the aforementioned crimes.

Agreed.  Like obviously it should be case by case.  I don't think you should lose your licence because of a single mistake unless its very serious--I'm all for second chances if a doc gets a DUI, or gets in a fight, or makes a well intentioned medical error.  There are things that SHOULD be disqualifying tho in my opinion--and its pretty clear serious sex assault is on that list.  So is killing lol.  Probably serious fraud.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goleafsgochris said:

Agreed.  Like obviously it should be case by case.  I don't think you should lose your licence because of a single mistake unless its very serious--I'm all for second chances if a doc gets a DUI, or gets in a fight, or makes a well intentioned medical error.  There are things that SHOULD be disqualifying tho in my opinion--and its pretty clear serious sex assault is on that list.  So is killing lol.  Probably serious fraud.  

That is your personal choice. You, though, cannot impose it on society and bar all convicted killers/sex offenders from practicing medicine once they have served their sentence. Who are you to prevent a convicted sex offender to do whatever she/he wants to do with her/his life after parole?

I am above such moralistic thinking where I am supposed to believe that physicians are these holy perfect healers who do not and cannot commit crimes and are holy figures blah. This is not even about giving second chances to that person. This is about that convicted person's right to do whatever they want to do with their life once they have served their sentence. They should have total freedom to practice medicine if they meet all academic requirements and are not a risk to patients (this last part itself is controversial, how can you determine if someone is a risk or not. One conviction is not a proof of future behavior. If that is true then every physician should go through risk assessment if they are a risk to patients despite no convictions in past). I will not accept any moral judgements being forced upon individuals based on their past crimes in order to prevent them from fulfilling their life's goals.

 

In 2018, practicing medicine is not a privilege. It is like any other job. Medicine is neither paternalistic today, nor is it a privilege anymore. A patient does not share any more of their secrets by disrobing in front of you for a physicial exam with you as a physician than they do by sharing their inner most thoughts with a psychotherapist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I'm wasting my time by responding given your username... or if you really have critical thinking difficulties.. 

"Positive findings arising from the criminal record screen will be considered for further action by the College based on the following criteria;

  1. The time period of the conviction;
  2. The seriousness of the offence; and
  3. The relevance of the details of the offence to the practice of medicine."

www.cpso.on.ca/Policies-Publications/Policy/Criminal-Record-Screening

 

You can be sure that murder and sexual assault are serious offences that would probably bar you from many job opportunities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrsarcastic99 said:

That is your personal choice. You, though, cannot impose it on society and bar all convicted killers/sex offenders from practicing medicine once they have served their sentence. Who are you to prevent a convicted sex offender to do whatever she/he wants to do with her/his life after parole?

I am above such moralistic thinking where I am supposed to believe that physicians are these holy perfect healers who do not and cannot commit crimes and are holy figures blah. This is not even about giving second chances to that person. This is about that convicted person's right to do whatever they want to do with their life once they have served their sentence. They should have total freedom to practice medicine if they meet all academic requirements and are not a risk to patients (this last part itself is controversial, how can you determine if someone is a risk or not. One conviction is not a proof of future behavior. If that is true then every physician should go through risk assessment if they are a risk to patients despite no convictions in past). I will not accept any moral judgements being forced upon individuals based on their past crimes in order to prevent them from fulfilling their life's goals.

 

In 2018, practicing medicine is not a privilege. It is like any other job. Medicine is neither paternalistic today, nor is it a privilege anymore. A patient does not share any more of their secrets by disrobing in front of you for a physicial exam with you as a physician than they do by sharing their inner most thoughts with a psychotherapist.

 

There are pretty much no effective treatments for antisocial and psychopathic behavior.  Letting them back out, let alone practice medicine has time and time again shown to be a bad idea hence the creation of a dangerous offender registry because the chance for recidivism is so high. 

 

Besides, seeing how so many new grads have trouble finding permanent positions after residency, allowing someone with a criminal record to practice medicine seems to wrongly see the criminal as a victim and not society.  The person that they  assaulted or raped will forever be a affected long after the bad guy has served his time.  The trust the public puts in physicians is delicate and this is no time to be nice and ruin it for the overwhelming majority of the normal doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mrsarcastic99 said:

Actually, your tribalism and collectivist mentality is a serious public safety issue. Let's stop individuals from hurting society from a delusional sense of fear for safety of that society.

Every case is different and has different facts. Every regulatory body has different laws and different mandates and different ways of looking at evidence. A physician found guilty in one regulatory body can be found not guilty in another regulatory body based on the same facts. But you do not care about that. You do not care about nuance. You do not care about unpacking different contextual situations and facts of each case. You only care about accepting without skepticism the decision of one regulatory body and then imposing it on other regulatory bodies and considering it revealed word from up high. You do not care if that regulatory body which returned a guilty finding was biased. You only care about living in supposed and imagined fear to public safety.

You only care that if a physician's license has been revoked in one jurisdiction, that physician should not be able to work in ANY other jurisdiction ever even if this other jurisdiction cleared him to not be a public safety threat. On one hand you accept unilaterally the decision of regulatory body which revoked the license, on the other hand you want to demolish the regulatory body in new jurisdiction which gives this physician the license to work after following their own due process.

I personally do not care if my physician is a convicted killer, fraudster or sex offender. As long as he/she has paid his/her debt to society after finishing their sentence and they are providing me the best healthcare I can receive without harming me, I am fine with their working as a physician. Just like I do not care if my female physician fucks other females in her bedroom or if she is a trans woman with a penis.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like their post hit close to home, eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, regular said:

There are pretty much no effective treatments for antisocial and psychopathic behavior.  Letting them back out, let alone practice medicine has time and time again shown to be a bad idea hence the creation of a dangerous offender registry because the chance for recidivism is so high. 

 

Besides, seeing how so many new grads have trouble finding permanent positions after residency, allowing someone with a criminal record to practice medicine seems to wrongly see the criminal as a victim and not society.  The person that they  assaulted or raped will forever be a affected long after the bad guy has served his time.  The trust the public puts in physicians is delicate and this is no time to be nice and ruin it for the overwhelming majority of the normal doctors.

Sensible response. Let me address valid issues you have raised.

19 hours ago, regular said:

here are pretty much no effective treatments for antisocial and psychopathic behavior.  Letting them back out, let alone practice medicine has time and time again shown to be a bad idea hence the creation of a dangerous offender registry because the chance for recidivism is so high. 

True. Some murderers/rapists commit crimes again. Some do not. I would, however, like to see evidence for your claim about "time and time again shown to be a bad idea."

I would recommend you to read this paper on recidivism rates.

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_bad_data.pdf

477420699_Screenshot-2018-5-2MicrosoftWord-BadData(1)docx-jpj_bad_datapdf.thumb.png.f40dfa8db5c3b5b3f80292c0d797b5d5.png

19 hours ago, regular said:

Besides, seeing how so many new grads have trouble finding permanent positions after residency, allowing someone with a criminal record to practice medicine seems to wrongly see the criminal as a victim and not society.  The person that they  assaulted or raped will forever be a affected long after the bad guy has served his time.  The trust the public puts in physicians is delicate and this is no time to be nice and ruin it for the overwhelming majority of the normal doctors.

By criminal record, do you mean convictions or past charges as well? Vulnerable Sector Check shows withdrawn criminal charges too. So if someone has been proven to be a murderer/rapist beyond a reasonable doubt then certainly I agree with you, that person has to convince society that they will not repeat those crimes and that is where psychiatrist reports etc come into play. But if criminal record shows withdrawn charges, do you think the same rules apply?

I think you need not worry about the trust between physicians and public. It seems it is already low, given The Star articles. Plus society is moving towards alternative forms of healthcare with naturopathy/chiropractice being recognized in Canada.

And, allowing someone with criminal record to practice medicine does not make the criminal be seen as a victim. If new grads cannot find jobs, it is not the fault of the convicted person. If the convicted physician brings a much better experience to table than the new grad except their conviction, it seems discrimination just based on conviction criminal record is not allowed by Human Rights Code of Ontario.  http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/code_grounds/record_of_offences

Quote

 

In employment, a person cannot be discriminated against in employment because of a “record of offences.” Employment decisions cannot be based on whether a person has been convicted and pardoned for an offence under a federal law, such as the Criminal Code, or convicted under a provincial law, such as the Highway Traffic Act. This provision applies to convictions only, and not to situations where charges only have been laid.

Employers must look at a person’s record of offences and consider whether the offence would have a real effect on the person’s ability to do the job and risk associated with them doing it. Employers can refuse to hire someone based on a record of offences only if they can show this is a reasonable and bona fide qualification.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The finding that people convicted of sex crimes had low levels of recidivism held true for individuals with adult or child victims. The overall recidivism rates for the combined group were 14%, 20%, and 24% after 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively. Individuals who had been convicted of incest had the lowest recidivism rates 6%, 9%, and 13% after 5, 10, and 15 year periods. Hanson & Morton-Bourgon (2004) found that 14% of individuals with previous convictions for sex crimes were convicted of a new sex crime, whereas 36% were convicted for any crime within five years.

Anything over 0% is too much and I can't think of any patient that deserves to be at risk of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 12:23 AM, regular said:

 

 

Besides, seeing how so many new grads have trouble finding permanent positions after residency, allowing someone with a criminal record to practice medicine seems to wrongly see the criminal as a victim and not society.  The person that they  assaulted or raped will forever be a affected long after the bad guy has served his time.  The trust the public puts in physicians is delicate and this is no time to be nice and ruin it for the overwhelming majority of the normal doctors.

I agree with you overall, but I do think there needs to be more shades of grey than just "having a criminal record."  I think it needs to be case by case.  I go back to the example of the DUI--which you can get, for example, even if the next morning you are still over the limit.  Its just one example and I don't think its ok to drive intoxicated by any means, but it seems way over the line to take someone's license away for something like that.  Same with things like drug possession, etc.  Maybe you suspend someone's license for a time for certain less serious crimes?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×