CPSO Decision

 

 

Concerning the deceitful manipulative doctor who made the decision to withdraw treatment- WITH NO CONSENT:

In the interest of full transparency, all documentation submitted to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) has been made publicly available on this website.

1. Time-Stamped Correspondence

Messages exchanged on the day of my conversation with the attending physician clearly reference multiple attempts to pressure my father into considering Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID).

Independent of my account, two nurses—with no personal connection to our family—documented overheard my family discussing this conversation regarding MAID. Their contemporaneous documentation provides independent corroboration that these discussions occurred.

2. Medical Record Review

The medical record contains no indication or documentation that my father, or any member of our family, consented to “de-escalate treatment.” The absence of such consent raises serious ethical and procedural concerns regarding the care decisions made.

3. Photographic Evidence of Misrepresentation

The physician recorded that my father was unable to use his communication board to point to letters. However, photographic evidence taken only days later shows him actively engaging in a game of tic-tac-toe with a family member—demonstrating cognitive engagement and physical capability.

This contradiction strongly suggests that the physician’s note was inaccurate and may have been used to support a misleading clinical narrative.

4. Pain Management Records

The physician further documented that my father was “requesting more pain medication.” Chart entries with dates, directly contradict this statement, showing no such requests.

Summary:

When reviewed collectively, these inconsistencies indicate a concerning pattern of documentation falsifications, and a doctor who is trying to steer her own narritave in a direction of her chosing. 

Despite the volume of evidence—including time-stamped messages, corroborating witness accounts, and photographic proof—the CPSO concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to pursue disciplinary action.

As a result, this physician remains in active practice without any noted sanctions or required remedial measures.

________________________________________________

CNO Decision

Concerning the ICU Manager and Registered Nurse Involved in the Restraint Incident

1. Evidence Submitted to the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO)

Hamilton Police Interviews

Interviews with the ICU Manager and the Chief of Interprofessional Practice reveal several inconsistencies and admissions.

They acknowledged that my father was physically restrained without a physician’s order, without documentation, and without family notification.

The police investigator noted the “convenient” lack of documentation supporting the claim that my father had been “pulling at tubes,” the justification offered for the restraints.

The practical reality, confirmed through observation and timing records, is that my father—a fully cognitive, non-agitated patient—was restrained and left unattended while the responsible nurse was on her lunch break. This deprived him of even basic autonomy and dignity to even scratch his own face. 

Medical Record Review

At the time of the restraint incident, my father had been a patient in the ICU for approximately six months. His temperament and condition were well documented; he was consistently described as alert, oriented, and cooperative.

No documentation supports the claim that he had ever attempted to interfere with medical equipment.

Decision Status

The CNO’s investigation remains ongoing. A decision has not yet been released. Updates will be provided here once the outcome is available.

________________________________________________

Systemic Concerns and Broader Implications:

The outcomes of these investigations point to broader systemic failures in Ontario’s healthcare oversight.

Given ongoing staffing shortages and resource constraints, it appears that regulatory bodies may be prioritizing workforce retention over accountability and patient protection.

This raises pressing ethical questions:

• How can the public trust healthcare oversight when clear evidence is dismissed?

• What mechanisms exist to ensure transparency when governing bodies decline to act?

• How many other families have faced similar circumstances without recourse?

 

When these principles are compromised, public trust—and patient safety—are inevitably at risk.