Dr. William Arthur Damian “Art” Beairsto was found by a discipline panel of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to have stroked a patient’s buttocks, routinely hugged and kissed her, told her she would be a “good lover,” and made a “woo” sound while examining her chest.

He’s still practising medicine.

Despite the findings made against him on Aug. 5, including sexual abuse of a patient, Beairsto can continue with his job pending a penalty hearing — the dates for which have yet to be set.

The case highlights gaps in the system designed to protect Ontarians from sexual abuse at the hands of health care professionals — the fact that groping a patient does not automatically lead to the revocation of a physician’s licence, and the fact that the CPSO says it generally must wait until a penalty hearing to take away that licence.

It also has the self-regulating CPSO and the government at loggerheads — with the Ministry of Health saying the CPSO could already move more quickly in cases such as Beairsto’s, while the CPSO says it needs changes in legislation to do so.

Beairsto declined to comment to the Star over the phone and again at his Leaside office this week. He denied the allegations before the discipline committee.

As a result of recommendations from a long-awaited task force report made public last week, Health Minister Eric Hoskins has promised to propose changes this fall to legislation to ensure that all forms of sexual contact — including groping — lead to the mandatory revocation of a physician’s licence.

Beairsto began working as a physician in 1979, and described his practice at the discipline hearing as 90 per cent psychotherapy and 10 per cent “general adult medicine.”

The hearing heard he operates alone out of a small house down the street from his home, and that his wife and adult children help with administrative tasks.

The complainant in the case, known only as Patient A due to a publication ban, saw Beairsto between 1997 and 2012, mainly for psychotherapy. The findings against Beairsto that were found to be proven by the four-member discipline panel in its 25-page decision include:

<bullet> Beairsto gave Patient A a back massage while she was in a hospital gown. The committee found this to be a boundary violation, but not sexualized.

<bullet> He deliberately touched and stroked Patient A’s buttocks as she prepared to leave after a psychotherapy session. She told the committee she felt like a “deer in the headlights.” The committee found this constituted sexual abuse.

<bullet> While examining Patient A’s chest after she complained of ongoing bronchitis — she had her shirt lifted above her bra — Beairsto smiled and made a “woo” sound that sounded to the patient like a sound of “approval.” The committee found this to be inappropriate and unprofessional.

<bullet> He told Patient A several times that she would make “a good lover,” which the committee said was unprofessional.

<bullet> Beairsto hugged and kissed Patient A on the cheeks after their psychotherapy sessions, which the committee found to be inappropriate, but not sexual abuse. Patient A found this conduct “weird,” while Beairsto testified that he kissed both male and female patients on the cheeks “in a cocktail party manner,” and hugged them “European-style.” He said he regrets hugging Patient A, and now only hugs and kisses his gay male patients, “as this allows him to demonstrate that, as a straight man, he is not homophobic.”

<bullet> Patient A testified that Beairsto touched himself near his genitals and then smelled his hand. The doctor said he did not touch his crotch, but may have moved his hand from somewhere below his desk to his nose “as part of a demonstration to explain that smelling one’s vaginal discharge could be helpful in determining if a vaginal infection had resolved.” He testified that Patient A “misinterpreted his efforts” to give some “practical” medical advice.

The committee found Beairsto’s description of the encounter to be unprofessional.

“It is so outside the norm of what is a professional way to communicate medical information that, even if not salacious as alleged, it is completely inappropriate, and the committee finds Dr. Beairsto’s conduct to be disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional,” the committee said.

While nearly every other form of sexual abuse already requires mandatory revocation — including penetration, oral sex and masturbation — groping remains a grey area, and the decision to remove a doctor’s licence remains entirely at the discretion of the discipline panel hearing the case.

In fact, the health minister launched the task force in 2014 as a result of a series of Star stories about doctors still at work after being found to have sexually abused their patients.

The CPSO has stated its support for the government’s proposed changes, and is also calling for further amendments to legislation to allow for a doctor’s licence to be revoked as soon as there is a finding of sexual abuse, rather than wait for a penalty hearing.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“One of the enhancements we’ve recommended to the legislation is that a finding of guilt of a revocable offence at the hearing does not require a delay until a penalty hearing to initiate the revocation,” CPSO president Dr. Joel Kirsh told the Star in an interview last week.

Critics believe the CPSO’s independent discipline committee could exercise its discretion now, and immediately move to strip Beairsto of his licence, rather than wait for any further changes to legislation.

“I don’t understand why the college doesn’t have the resources to have an expedited penalty hearing, particularly where the physician continues to practise, exposing the public to potential harm,” said medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte.

“This decision was released Aug. 5 and here we are, five weeks later, without a penalty decision having been made.”

The health minister also seemed to echo in a statement to the Star on Thursday that legislative changes are not necessary in order to move more quickly in cases of sexual abuse.

“My expectation is that the CPSO use all the disciplinary tools currently available to them — including suspensions and mandatory revocations — to protect the public wherever necessary,” Hoskins said.

Harte, the malpractice lawyer, said the public ends up being “sacrificed” between the CPSO saying it needs legislative changes to get tougher on dirty doctors and the government saying the CPSO is the one with the ultimate responsibility to effectively deal with these matters.

“It just seems to be a constant theme of a lack of will, both on the part of the government and the college, to finally address this problem, this long-standing problem.”

CPSO spokeswoman Kathryn Clarke said the self-regulating body is working to schedule dates for Beairsto’s penalty hearing “at the earliest opportunity.”

She did not respond as to why Beairsto hasn’t at least been suspended, because the case is an outstanding matter. Speaking generally, she said a physician’s licence can be restricted once the case is referred to discipline, but only if evidence suggests that the physician’s conduct exposes, or is likely to expose, the public to harm.

“In such cases, the courts have held that the least restrictive order can be made to ensure public protection, given that allegations have not been proven at this stage,” she said.

The only current restriction on Beairsto’s licence, according to the CPSO’s public register, dates to 2010.

Known as an undertaking, it prohibits him from engaging in the psychotherapeutic treatment of any patients with a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder and/or borderline personality disorder. He also agreed not to see patients prior to 7 a.m. or after 9 p.m.

No reasons are given for the restrictions. Clarke said that as part of the CPSO’s transparency initiative, new undertakings will now include more information about why a physician has agreed to restrict his or her practice.