Physicians, like most people, do not fancy being called before a court of law. Unlike the average citizen, the chances of that happening are greater though. Because of one’s education and experience, a physician is considered an expert, no matter how average a practitioner he or she might be. He or she is there for libel to be called as a witness in a case, particularly if it involves one of his or her patients
I am happy to say that I was able to complete my Family Practice career without ever being called to testify in court. This is not to say that I did not have my "brushes with the law." On one occasion when we had in our emergency department a male patient who was evidently intoxicated and had been involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused some harm, we evidently overstepped our bounds by collecting a blood alcohol sample without his permission. He might not have been competent enough to give permission in any case, but that might not matter to the law. As a result, I had to drive a number of miles across country in the winter to the municipal hall nearest this gentleman’s residence, where there was a hearing, or maybe even a convening of a court, about the accident. I was fortunate in that nothing more happened to me because of this error other than "getting my knuckles wrapped."
On another occasion, I was not in trouble. A senior citizen, relatively newly admitted to our local personal care home, had been assaulted by visitors who were after his money. He did suffer significant brain injury, although I do not recall that it left any lasting sequel. I do remember that there were signs of serious brain injury including having blood from his ear, which often indicates trauma that has affected even the interior of the skull. In that case, I was called to testify and give my findings at a hearing, or, again, was it a court? that was held in the Gladstone Town Hall. I was glad to do this on the behalf of our care home resident.
I remember one other incident when I was already practising in Brandon. I had done some minor surgery, as I recall, to a lesion in a patient’s anterior abdominal wall. The wound became infected and he ended up in emergency and got more definitive treatment there at that time. This had apparently necessitated opening up the wound and doing some debridement and cleansing. He threatened to sue me but the attending physician in emergency wrote a report that suggested the gentleman had not done a good job of following up on aftercare either. The case went no further.
In this case, and in other cases where, as a physician, I suspected I could get into trouble, I was fortunate to have the strong support of the physician mutual insurance body, the Canadian medical protective association. If one reported a situation to them with concerns that there might be legal ramifications ,or they were already at play, they had physicians and lawyers experienced in these matters to look into it and come to our defence if we were deemed defensible. Even if not, they would come to our aid to mitigate the consequences as much as possible. We were fortunate to have this organization in Canada. I know that in the United States, where such bodies are private and for profit, their insurance premiums were sometimes 10 times what our hours were as Family Physicians, let alone what some higher risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery paid.
Another instance where physicians can come down on the wrong side of the law or medical standards is when it comes to prescribing drugs. There were two classes of drugs where I knew my prescribing habits were not exactly on par with many of my colleagues. The one area was in the treatment of pain. This is an area of controversy still and there was a lot of education about it even then. There was a large concern on the part of the public and even a number of physicians that prescribing narcotics or opiates would lead to addiction. There was also a concern that physicians might collude with patients and issue prescriptions where they were not warranted, or in excessive amounts. Being a rural area, there was sometimes concern that individuals coming from the city might try to take advantage of us in that way. Indeed, I remember one woman who stopped in, I believe on her way to Riding Mountain National Park, giving a story that she hoped would result in a prescription for an opiate. I am not sure exactly what happened but she did get a prescription and then was discovered possibly trying to turn it into a powder and inject it in the washroom. This came to light after she had left so I quickly alerted the pharmacist to cancel the prescription and I believe the police caught up with her later as well.
Chronic pain was always a dilemma. There is so often such an overlay of psychology and trauma history. One really had to make appropriate assessments and be judicious about the use of medication in these circumstances. I had paid more attention to this area of treatment than probably some of my colleagues had and learned that if there was a need for some medication along these lines, it was better to mete it out in a controlled manner. If one gave episodic prescriptions, the withdrawal from these drugs was what would lead to the desire for them and sometimes cycle into abuse and drug seeking behavior. In my time in Family Practice I really never encountered anyone who exhibited undue behaviour around getting prescriptions or renewals.
The other area where some of my colleagues again were not, in my opinion, as versed as I was, was the relatively new area of diagnosing and treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults. I had a very few adults in my practice who seemed to fit that profile, and again, I tried to be judicious and spread out my prescriptions but also keep them regular without significant dosage changes which could've been a problem.
In any case, one of my colleagues thought that this was all going to fae and reported me to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, our provincial licensing body. As a result, I lost my ability to prescribe these medication's for a six month period and was obliged to take a six week course of remedial training. I was fortunate in being able to turn this into a positive experience in more ways than one. In the first case, somewhat surprisingly, I obtained a College of Family Practice bursary to cover some of the expenses of not practicing for six-weeks, ergo no income. It also meant leaving home and going to Winnipeg to spend some time in different programs there to supposedly make me more informed about working in this area. I was fortunate in that I was able to stay with my younger brother during this time. Having a number of relatives and friends in Winnipeg also gave me an opportunity to spend time with him. Some of this re-education time was spent in the drug and alcohol foundation treatment centre, an independent facility on Portage Avenue. Some of it was spent with the department of psychiatry at Saint Boniface Hospital and their methadone treatment program.
The other way in which I made something positive out of it was that I took the opportunity to address a group of students on this subject. I had been a member of the Christian medical and dental Society of Canada since I was a student and was still keeping up connections with colleagues in this organization. It was thus that I was able to arrange a meeting with a group of students to talk about the issue of drug abuse and dependence.
In the end, it was kind of ironic, and some would call it poetic justice when the colleague who had reported me had to take a medical leave of absence on my return. I was left to follow some of his patients and discovered that he was, in my opinion, guilty of excessive prescriptions of tranquilizers, such as benzodiazepines, which was also always a danger.
Other than this experience, I do not think that in my family practice years, the College ever received any complaints about me and so I would thankfully consider that my record as a family physician was quite good overall.