Cosmetic surgeon commits professional misconduct and privacy breaches: disciplinary committee

Security system exposed clinic's private areas

Cosmetic surgeon commits professional misconduct and privacy breaches: disciplinary committee

A discipline committee has made a finding of professional misconduct in relation to a doctor whose cosmetic surgery clinic implemented a surveillance system that reached private areas where patients would undress.

In Ontario (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) v. Jugenburg, 2020 ONCPSD 40, a Toronto-based physician who owned and practised at a cosmetic surgery clinic allegedly committed an act of professional misconduct relevant to the practice of medicine that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional in violation of paragraph 1(1)33 of Ontario Regulation 856/93 made under the Medicine Act, 1991.

The Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario found that the doctor had committed professional misconduct by allowing a television crew to record Patient A’s surgical procedure without first securing her informed consent, which constituted a major breach of her privacy. The patient stated that she was shocked when she later found out that a part of her breast was briefly shown during the news segment.

While the doctor admitted that he had engaged in conduct connected to the practice of medicine which may reasonably be considered disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, he contended that Patient A had consented to the presence of television crew in the operating room during her surgery.

The committee accepted the doctor’s submission that he believed that Patient A had agreed that the television crew would be present in the operating room to record him and his assistant, as long as Patient A herself was not recorded. The committee emphasized, however, that this belief could not take the place of her valid consent, which should be both voluntary and informed.

The committee also found that the doctor fell short of his privacy obligations when his clinic accidentally posted the “before and after” images of Patient B’s torso twice online, once on Snapchat and a second time on Instagram. Patient B also said that she felt pressured to contribute to the doctor’s social media posts and that the doctor appeared to prioritize his social media platforms over her recovery, which she considered insensitive. While the doctor had not posted the images himself, the committee said that he was still responsible for how social media platforms were handled by the staff at his clinic.

The committee then found that the clinic had implemented a video surveillance system over a two-year period that breached the privacy interests of thousands of his own patients and the patients of other doctors who worked there, absent their knowledge and consent. The existence of the clinic’s legitimate security concerns did not excuse the way that surveillance equipment had been installed in private areas where patients were often undressed and exposed. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario also conducted investigations regarding this.

Related stories

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Windsor Law forms partnership to launch IP literacy program for creative entrepreneurs

Court of Appeal rejects appeal of doctor who did not perform biopsy on patient with risk factors

Judge supervising insolvency can prioritize priming charges over Crown's deemed trust: Supreme Court

How to make the most out of hybrid work

Lincoln Alexander School of Law welcomes Laverne Jacobs, Mohamed Khimji as visiting scholars

Fines of $6,500 issued for fatal incident where pleasure craft was advertised as tour boat

Most Read Articles

Court of Appeal rules judge erred in finding hearsay evidence inadmissible

Case 'about breaking new ground' for accountability in coroner death investigations: Julian Falconer

Court of Appeal declines to apply common law reconciliation rule to void a cohabitation agreement

How to make the most out of hybrid work