Opening the doors on misconduct hearings

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 23/04/2024 (501 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It’s often said that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

In other words, that the best way to deal with problems is to address them out in the open.

And you’d like to believe that physicians are all about stopping infection.

Here’s a chance to find out if that’s the case.

The provincial government is moving ahead with legislation that will open up some disciplinary hearings for health professions included in the Regulated Health Professions Act: audiologists, speech language pathologists, registered nurses, physicians, physician assistants, clinical assistants, paramedics and registered psychiatric nurses.

It’s an issue the Free Press has been addressing, especially in regard to physician misconduct, since 2022. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba has had a history of transparency and public accountability issues.

The change will mean that public cancellation hearings for physicians convicted of crimes related to their suitability to practise will be heard in public.

The government’s argument is a straightforward one.

“We’ve heard from survivors that transparency helps to rebuild trust,” Health Minister Uzoma Asagwara said after introducing Bill 36, the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act, in the legislature. “The public has seen stories in recent years that have at times shaken the trust that folks have in accessing health care and it’s important, as a government, that we listen to survivors.”

But it does more than rebuild trust. It helps other patients who may have faced similar issues with a physician to know that they are not alone, and may help them to bring their concerns forward.

It’s embarrassing for patients to raise concerns about their doctors, who are in a position of power in the patient-physician relationship, especially when it’s so difficult to even find a physician.

It would also take away concerns — well founded or not — that something akin to the “old boys’ club” was affording doctors accused of misconduct preferential treatment to their own.

Are there reasons some issues should be dealt with privately? Of course. And the legislation addresses that: there are exemptions for matters involving public security; for the disclosure of “financial, personal or other matters,” where the desirability of keeping certain issues private outweighs the public’s right to know; for situations where a criminal or civil case might be prejudiced; and situations where a person’s safety might be at risk.

The only issue is that someone has to ensure those sorts of exemptions are not abused. There is probably not a single longtime news reporter who hasn’t seen a sudden decision to take a public meeting “in camera” because the issues at hand are suddenly getting too close to the bone for the assembled adjudicators, whether it’s a municipal council or another body.

The college “must ensure that the reasons for not holding a public meeting are given orally at the meeting and are made available to the public in writing,” according to the new act, but those are still pretty broad areas of exemption.

Another concern? Right now, the open hearings only address doctors whose behaviour has essentially already been proven to be improper. In a lot of ways, that means the college only has to open the doors on cases that are, well, pretty much open and shut anyway. The only way the meetings will help the public’s knowledge of physician misconduct will be for cases that have otherwise flown under the radar.

For the rest of the hearings dealt with by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, everything can continue as it does now.

That’s not necessarily a good thing.

We’ll finish with another saying that should be considered: justice not only has to be done — it has to be seen to be done.