Backroom deals deny patients useful information about doctors
TheStar.com – Opinion/Editorials – Backroom deals between errant doctors and Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons are depriving patients of potentially useful information on wrongs committed by physicians
Mar 02 2015. Editorial
Backroom deals between errant doctors and Ontario’s medical watchdog are depriving patients of potentially useful information on alleged wrongs committed by physicians.
The secrecy is meant to preserve doctors’ privacy, but it comes at a cost of keeping the public in the dark about the failures of professionals to whom people entrust their health.
At issue are confidential agreements, officially called “undertakings,” between the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and doctors deemed to have made mistakes. As reported by the Star’s Theresa Boyle, an examination of the college’s website between 2005 and 2014 revealed evidence of 164 such deals involving significant restrictions placed on doctors. These were matters in which the public was deemed at “high risk,” but there’s no explanation as to why the deals were made, or any mention of allegations or complaints.
Specific restrictions resulting from such “undertakings” include, for example, some physicians agreeing to quit doing surgery, and others desisting from prescribing narcotic drugs.
There may be good reason for some of this deal-making. In cases where evidence is thin, it might make sense to reach an undertaking requiring a rogue doctor to change his or her ways rather than risk a failed disciplinary hearing.
But it’s impossible to know if the system is working as it should because, all too often, undertakings are made out of the public eye, with no input from patients who may have been affected and no clear explanation of the rationale underlying a deal.
There’s a sense that an errant doctor’s privacy is given greater priority than patients’ right to see important information about their physician’s track record. And that can’t help but sap public trust in the healthcare system and in Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons.
At least the college does post whether doctors have undertakings in matters deemed to be of high risk — resulting in a physician’s resignation or in major restrictions. But other undertakings remain secret, with the college refusing even to reveal their number.
Deals reached in response to situations in which the public is deemed at “moderate risk” remain under wraps, as are undertakings involving “low risk,” and posing “no/minimal risk.”
The college is considering release of some details on “moderate risk” deals. And the public would be well-served if it did so.
Defenders of the status quo have claimed that provincial legislation significantly limits just how transparent this organization can be. But that interpretation is disputed by medical negligence lawyers, among others, who argue there’s still much more room for public disclosure.
There’s a broad trend in society toward increased openness in medical matters. And Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins is, quite rightly, on record as listing improved transparency in the healthcare system as one of his top priorities.
The college seems aware that it should do more to make that a priority, too. It is currently working on public consultations aimed at producing bylaw changes. And disclosure of more information about undertakings, especially those posing a “moderate risk” to the public, deserves to be a fundamental part of any reform. There’s been enough secrecy here.
Undertakings are more than just an internal matter for the medical profession to settle on its own. The trail of errors a doctor leaves behind should be visible to patients. Only when armed with that knowledge can people make truly informed choices about their care.
< http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/03/02/backroom-deals-deny-patients-useful-information-about-doctors-editorial.html >
Tags: Health, ideology, rights, standard of living
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015 at 10:46 am and is filed under Health Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments