Patient left doctor’s office in tears
Toronto optometrist suspended for making sexual remarks to woman
The patient went into the optometrist’s examination room with concerns about red eyes and a “circle” in her left eye. She left shaken and on the verge of tears.
“I’m not looking,” Dr. Peter Spear told the 25-yearold woman, when he asked her to uncross her legs to conduct an examination. “If only I was younger,” he told her at another point.
To the patient’s boyfriend, who had arrived at the clinic, Spear said, in the woman’s presence: “She is a beautiful woman and not just from the neck up . . . You should put a ring on it before somebody snatches her up.”
And then came the statement about beards.
According to a recent discipline decision from the College of Optometrists, Spear then broached another topic with the patient when she returned to the examination room after having introduced her boyfriend to the optometrist: “The member also made a comment to the patient regarding an article that he had recently read about men’s beards. The member told the patient that the article stated men’s beards are full of feces,” said the decision.
“The member commented further that men touch their crotch area and then their beards and then said that the patient should think about this when she thinks about her boyfriend, who the member had just met, (who) had a beard at the time.”
Spear, who opened the Toronto Eye Clinic at Yonge St. and Eglinton Ave. about 30 years ago, admitted before a discipline panel that his remarks about the beard constituted professional misconduct. He also admitted to making the comments about the patient’s looks, which the panel found to be sexual abuse.
He was handed a five-week suspension, ordered to take training on ethics, and made to pay $16,000 for the patient’s counselling fees, should she require it, along with a further $68,000 in costs to the college.
Toronto lawyer Brian Greenspan, who represented Spear in the proceedings, objected to the term “sexual abuse.”
Greenspan also highlighted Spear’s “unblemished, 30-plus-year record” in his field.
“He’s highly regarded. He is a very able professional. He has mentored countless people, has mentored countless women optometrists. Two of his closest associates, within his practice, are women. He has great respect and sensitivity toward women,” Greenspan told the Star.
He said the term “sexual abuse” is a “misnomer” in this case, while acknowledging that provincial legislation makes clear that remarks alone can constitute sexual abuse of a patient.
“He was always honest and candid about what had occurred and he was not as sensitive in terms of his language and his responsiveness to his patient as he ought to have been,” Greenspan said.
“Having said that, the words ‘sexual abuse,’ if used outside the context of the health professions . . . then one would think he is a predator, or somebody who took advantage of someone, or someone who physically invaded somebody’s space.
“That’s why the words ‘sexual abuse’ are such a misnomer for the type of behaviour that occurred here.
“The conduct was verbal only, and admittedly insensitive, but, at the same time, that’s the essential aspect of what took place.”
In an agreed statement of facts, Spear said that he did not intend for his comments or behaviour to be sexual in nature, but admitted that, with the benefit of hindsight, “they are appropriately viewed as such when considered objectively, and, as a whole, in all of the circumstances.”
The panel told Spear in a public reprimand that his behaviour had brought the profession of optometry into disrepute.
“We view this case involving sexual abuse as serious. We are concerned, that, as a practitioner, you failed to provide an environment where your patient felt safe and comfortable,” the panel said.
Medical malpractice lawyer Paul Harte, who was not involved in this case, said the college sent an important message of zero tolerance, and questioned whether the same complaint about a physician would even make it to a discipline hearing.
“I do believe that the use of the term ‘sexual abuse’ may have been unduly strong for the facts of this case. This does not take away from the inexcusable nature of the conduct,” Harte said.
“The optometrist clearly went over the line and should not have engaged in this harassing behaviour. He paid a significant penalty reflecting the importance of boundaries between health workers and their patients.”