California Has A Deadly Problem With Regulating Naturopathic Doctors

Forbes, 24 April 2017
Author: Britt Marie Hermes
“Since there is no “naturopathic standard of care,” a point that the committee acknowledged in 2009 and that critics of the regulation of naturopathy have noticed too, naturopathic expert reviewers must make ad hoc determinations that are likely to deviate from the medical consensus and fail to establish lasting precedent. For some influential naturopathic doctors, the standard of care includes anything taught in naturopathic school or done by two or more practitioners.”
Find article here.

Kaye v Psychology Board of Australia (Occupational Discipline) [2017] ACAT 27

Date of orders: 18 April 2017
“OCCUPATIONAL DISCIPLINE – psychologist – immediate action – matters to be satisfied – Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (ACT) section 156 – nature of appeal from board – Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (ACT) section 199(h).”
Find decision here.

A doctor’s sexual advances towards a patient are never ok, even if ‘consensual’

The Conversation, 20 April 2017
Author: Ron Paterson
“In a recent independent review, I recommended chaperones no longer be used as an interim protective measure to keep patients safe while allegations of sexual misconduct by a doctor are investigated. The Medical Board of Australia and AHPRA have accepted my recommendations that the current system of using chaperones is outdated and paternalistic. Sadly, cases of sexual misconduct are likely to continue. It’s important patients know the warning signs and where to seek help if they suspect their doctor is behaving inappropriately.”
Find article here.

Surgeon who operated on wrong vertebrae has no action taken against him

BMJ 2017; 357: j1817
Author: Clare Dyer
“A consultant neurosurgeon who operated on the wrong vertebrae in a patient’s spine then kept his mistake hidden from the patient and his NHS trust has been spared any sanction by a medical practitioners tribunal, despite its finding that his practice was impaired on the grounds of dishonesty.”
Find article here.

Health Care Complaints Commission v DAC [2017] NSWCATOD 48

Decision date: 3 April 2017
“Suppression order – Consideration of effect on doctor’s professional career. When the hearing of the complaints commenced on Monday, 13 March 2017 the Respondent made an application for a non-publication order under the provisions of clause 7 of Schedule 5D to the National Law.”
Find decision here.

Blocked from public health system, drunk doctor finds job at private hospital

SMH, 7 April 2017
Author: Harriet Alexander
“An anaesthetist who abandoned his patient mid-operation and then passed out from intoxication has found new employment at Shellharbour Private Hospital. The doctor who had a history of drinking on the job, has not returned to work at Wollongong Hospital since the incident on its premises in May last year. But the NSW Medical Board allowed him to continue practising under certain conditions”
Find article here.

NG v Chinese Medicine Board of Australia [2017] NSWCATOD 36

Decision date: 15 March 2017
“PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – Where health practitioner has appealed against conditions placed on her registration – where the Chinese Medical Board concedes an error in imposing conditions and has caused removal of conditions from the Register maintained by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency –
Whether appeal is frivolous or vexatious or misconceived or lacking in substance – Consideration of objects of Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) and of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law – whether dismissal of appeal would deny appellant procedural fairness. Where continuation of appeal will not result in a practical outcome.”
Find case here.

da HORTA -v- PODIATRY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA [2017] WASC 82

Delivered: 24 March 2017
“On about 30 November 2016, the Board notified the applicant that it had decided under s 178 and s 179 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law to caution him. The Board gave brief reasons for its action, finding certain failings in the applicant’s treatment of a named patient, including that he should have communicated risks and likely success or failure rates of any proposed treatment more clearly, should have conducted a more through ‘consenting process’, and that his clinical records were inadequate. It stated his professional performance ‘is or may be unsatisfactory’.”
Find case here.