I admire Dr. Lang’s method of presenting his point of view in a direct manner. He does not circumvent the issue in a typically tempered and politically correct manner. Kudos to Randy; finally someone has the ‘jam to step up’ and tell it like it is.
Dr. Lang’s published examples of ludicrous laws that still exist, waxes pale in comparison to the issue whereby 15 members of CORHPA signed this organized and reasonable protest against the recent court ruling that prohibits spouses from providing and receiving dental care versus the ODA’s ‘head in the sand approach’ and not signing.
I have provided dental care for my wife since she was 20 years old and in fact she has no recollection of any other dental practitioner providing care for her. Now she is compelled, because of this Draconian ruling, to seek treatment elsewhere. I have read somewhere in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that provides for freedom of choice. I was certain until now, that dentists and their spouses live in a democracy. My wife is very apprehensive about seeing another dentist after 24 years because she is forced to by a court ruling. A legal ruling that resulted by our very own organization’s failure to non acquiesce to this ridiculous law.
I sincerely urge others to communicate their thoughts to the Ontario Dental Association. Perhaps a more intelligent and well conceived motion can be initiated and spouses can once again be entitled to receive the same consideration that the remainder of the citizens of our country enjoy. The ODA simply dropped the ball when it failed to sign this original well conceived protest to the Ontario Minister of Health. It is extremely difficult to understand why this has happened. However, waiting for the ODA to wade through copious meetings in their hallowed halls and reverse their ‘failure to appear’, in order to get the government’s attention; stands as much of a chance as the guy with the bear in his front seat. Fifteen organizations step up, and ours simply cries no contest and fails to sign. This makes no sense whatsoever.
I agree with Mr. Trudeau; “the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. I fail to understand how this monumental document of Canadian History that assures Canadians that their basic human rights cannot be set aside with such cavalier abandon, can fall victim to the foolish behaviour of one individual. It behooves all of us to rally and join hands to reverse this ruling as it borders on utter bombasity.
Married spouses will continue to have consensual sex and married spouses will continue to need dental care. Come on now, what does one have to do with the other?
Dr. Terry Witzu Chelmsford, ON
Randy, as per usual, great editorial. This stuff is real 1984 material. I am reminded of the saying ‘rules and regulations are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools’…
Dr. Andrew F. Thompson Halifax, NS
Great article! The frustrating thing is that it is true. Although I can’t see much public interest in how this law effects dentists, has any thought been given to ensure that this law doesn’t continue to be discriminatory in its application? Why should this law not govern all professionals and employers?
Since sexual harassment is typically considered to be about power not sex, shouldn’t anyone who is in position of authority over their spouse be subject to this law? I am sure if the parties subject to this law were expanded at a minimum to include lawyers and politicians we would see a much more reasonable outcome.
Dr. Sven F. Grail, Chairman, Altima Dental Canada Toronto, ON
I’m pleased to acknowledge Randy Lang, an orthodontist, as our Canadian Jon Stewart. He’s really a blend of Stewart and Colbert. I’ve respected Randy for more years than I’ve known him. I love his type of fighter; clearly issue-focused, rational, open to further discussion and relishing debate.
His September 2010 Oral Health editorial, Dumb Stupid Laws, is a joy to read, even if one does not understand the very serious issue that underlies his article. I carefully searched his words to determine any inaccuracies or exaggerations; I found none.
If the ODA, RCDSO and our Ontario government don’t make some reasonable and practical accommodations to protect Ontario dentists from the current dumb, stupid law, then we should consider asking the Taliban to abandon Afghanistan and move their operations to Ontario. The world would be so much better off and we will hopefully prevent hundreds on Ontario dentists from losing their licenses for five long years.
Dr. Ivan Hrabowsky St. Catharines, ON
(Ed. Note: Dr. Hrabowsky is a past president of the Ontario Dental Association) I would like to commend you for the courage, humor and timeliness of your editorial. This is an issue that most skirt, burying their heads firmly in the sand, hoping that it will not affect them. You took the bull**** by the horns and crossed the Rubicon in style, with adjectives and adverbs blazing.
It is interesting, as you mention, that ‘our’ ODA did not see fit to sign the letter to the Ministry of Health and protest the lunacy of this bureaucratic absurdity. I wonder how dentists not treating their spouses protects the public? Only the insurance companies can benefit.
This ‘cannot treat your spouse or you lose your license’ rule justifiably makes Ontario and its professions global laughing stocks. I am sure that I will be asked embarrassing questions about this insanity wherever I travel.
As a legal point: does this rule not infringe upon the spouse’s legal right to be attended by a professional of their choice?
Dr. George Freedman Markham, ON
There is certainly no grey area when it comes to sexual relations with patients. I believe there is a definitive line one must not cross. Treating and having sexual relations with a patient , whether living with them or not, should not be condoned, as in the case of the chiropractor sited in the article. However, I believe the situation changes the day one gets married, or the day a common law relationship is recognized. Your partner then becomes your spouse, who also happens to be a patient; not a patient who happens to be your spouse. I don’t think I’ve ever had to correct myself at a dinner party, when I inadvertently introduced my wife as “and this is my patient, Paula.” PEI and other provinces have recognized this and built an exception into the law.
I have two questions I’d liked answered by my associations; those being the ODA, and the CDA, both of whom I’ve been a member of for the past thirty years.
Question 1. The RCDS, ODA, and CDA have always fought for a patient’s right to attend the dentist of their choice. Now up to 8,000 spouses in the province of Ontario can go to any dentist, except the probable dentist of their choice. I know a lot of specialists that I trust and have confidence in, if my wife is in need of such care, but I don’t usually refer to other general practicing dentists. When she asks me who she should see, I’ll have to say “I guess you could call the ODA, and ask them for a dentist in your area.”
Question 2. Let’s not forget this law was part of the new “Health Professions Act” of the early 1990s (1991 if I remember correctly ). So, if I stop treating my wife tomorrow, what protection do I have in the eyes of the law, for having ‘sexually abused’ her from 1991 to the present day? If I was arrested for breaking any other law in the province of Ontario, I don’t think a defence of “But I haven’t done that in a long time” would stand up in a court of law.
Make no mistake about it. As ridiculous as this law is, it will eventually come before the courts in a different scenario. When a dentist’s ex-spouse has more money than they need, and wants revenge more than alimony or child support, this will be heard before a judge and/or the RCDS. And this is certainly no fault of the RCDS. The RCDS only enforces the ‘rules’ to protect the public, and
guide the profession. Or in this case to protect our spouses, and guide the profession. It’s up to the ODA and the CDA to act in the best interests of their members, and their spouses, in this case. In that the ODA didn’t sign the recent letter to the Minister of Health, asking for an exemption in cases of this nature, what is a dentist to do?
Here’s my suggestion. I would propose, all 8,000 dentists in the province of Ontario write a letter to the RCDS and turn themselves in. It could go something like this:
Dear Sir or Madam,
After much thought, and many guilt ridden nights too numerous to count, I would like to finally come clean. Since the law was enacted in 1991, for the last 19 years, I have been ‘sexually abusing’ a patient in my practice ( my spouse). I would now like to humbly, throw myself on the mercy of the court, and turn myself in.
Can you imagine 8,000 dentists all being suspended for five years, and the hue and cry from their thousands of patients. This would certainly force the slow hand of government into action. It seems bureaucratic rhetoric is more important than the thousands of patients we treat, who could no longer attend the dentist they’ve trusted for years, because the law mandated a five year censure of their dentist’s licence because of ‘sexual abuse’ of their spouse.
Dr. Steven H. Brown Toronto
———
I would propose, all 8,000 dentists in the province of
Ontario write a letter to the RCDS
