Dr. Vincent Nadon: Sex Assaults + Voyeurism

[mrsarcastic99]

There is no discussion thread on these forums on this news, so here it goes:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/vincent-nadon-doctor-uottawa-charges-1.4545276

 

Criminal Code Canada defines voyeurism as:

Voyeurism

• 162 (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if

  • (a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;

  • (b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or

  • (c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162.html

 

Recording someone when there is expectation of privacy from that person makes sense for being against the law. But the most important question is that when a patient is exposing their privates for medical exam to a physician, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in regards to that very physician who is supposed to examine them by being present in that very room? There is this contradiction in the law itself.

The second issue is of "secretly" recording someone. In Canada, in general, you can record someone without their consent which means you need only 1 person's consent to record i.e. yourself. The person being recorded does not have to know that they are being recorded as long as the person doing the recording is part of the conversation/meeting. Why is all of a sudden a doctor secretly video recording a patient without patient's consent, when there is no expectation of privacy as the patient him/herself has exposed to the doctor for exam, illegal?

If this Dr. Nadon is innocent of "voyeurism", his defense would be that he did not record for sexual purposes or that he did not do any recordings (if there is no such evidence found by the Poleece). Crown has to prove that the recording was for sexual purpose. Crown will usually use male sexuality stereotypes to make this argument: why else would a male physician record a patient during examination? Dr. Nadon can argue that he recorded videos as a security measure to protect himself from potential false allegations of sexual assault made by patients and that video recordings of all patient encounters, in his view, are the gold standard evidence to expose those who would make false allegations of sex assault against him.

On top we do not know if he was recording when the patient was exposed or just recording regular non-exposed non-genital physical exam? If he was recording genital/private exams without patient consent, that seems wrong, as he can always use a chaperone more safely.

If patients can record physicians without consent, why cannot physicians record patients without consent? At least that is what latest CMPA publication from 2017 says. Seems in 2018 the power is in patient's hands, not physicians'.

Touchy area as it will step on lot of nerves, but requires much needed clarification from relevant powers that be.

For now it seems the best defense and security physicians have to protect from false allegations of any sort made by patients is to have a 3rd person as a chaperone in the room for every single patient encounter. The 3rd person can act as a witness to contradict any such false allegations. Then it would be word of 1 complainant against 2.

For nerds: https://robichaudlaw.ca/reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-in-voyeurism-crime-in-canada-the-case-of-jarvis/

[Snowmen]

You can't seriously be suggesting that filming a patient during a physical exam, and secretly doing so on top of everything, is alright.

You're not, right?

Edit: So I checked your profile, turns out you're a troll. I feel relieved now.

[mrsarcastic99]

11 minutes ago, Snowmen said:

You can't seriously be suggesting that filming a patient during a physical exam, and secretly doing so on top of everything, is alright.

You're not, right?

If a patient can secretly record a physician, why cannot a physician do so? I am not suggesting anything as I do not know the answer, I am just looking at both sides and trying to figure out that there seems to be some imbalance.

Recording intimate private exam of patient is indeed not right, especially without their consent. But I am talking about non-genital physical exam encounters.

For private genital exams, physicians already have the security to bring in a chaperone as a 3rd person to make sure things remain professional.

[mrsarcastic99]

12 minutes ago, Snowmen said:

Edit: So I checked your profile, turns out you're a troll. I feel relieved now.

What a convincing argument! Socrate's student?

[End Poverty]

2 hours ago, mrsarcastic99 said:

If a patient can secretly record a physician, why cannot a physician do so? I am not suggesting anything as I do not know the answer, I am just looking at both sides and trying to figure out that there seems to be some imbalance.

Recording intimate private exam of patient is indeed not right, especially without their consent. But I am talking about non-genital physical exam encounters.

For private genital exams, physicians already have the security to bring in a chaperone as a 3rd person to make sure things remain professional.

 

The issue of video/ audio recording the patient-doctor interaction is definitely quite complicated...

In extreme cases, if a physician chooses to record a pt encounter then it should be part of the medical record ( it should not ever be done in secret and it should never include sensitive examination). If a physician is in a difficult encounter with a patient, and the patient is threatening the doctor, or compromising safety or making false accusations, then I can see few possible reasons why a physician would like to record their encounter with the patient without consent, but it should still be included as part of medical record as soon as this event takes place in order to protect the physician's and patient's rights and it should not ever include any sensitive examination.The above mentioned physician was recording patients without their consent and he did NOT include it as part of the medical record, which makes me suspicious of his intentions.  Did other staff members know that he was recording his patients?

Pts may also have few reason to record a doctor:

- they may have difficulties recalling info.

- they may like to share their medical info with their other caregivers.

But.. -  the privacy of medical staff might be compromised - the recording may be used in malpractice litigation.

Therefore, perhaps clinics should have a policy in regards of the recording of patient encounters whether it is the physician or the patient recording it, but how can they ensure compliance, especially from the patients' side is going to be quite difficult.  I believe that if a doc suspects that a pt is recording them, then they should speak about their concerns and educate the patient.