Mr. William Prasifka:

I thank the Chairman very much for inviting us and for his consideration of our other commitments. It is the last meeting in the five-year term of the Medical Council. I will not read the opening statement but simply refer to a few highlights. The Medical Council was established under the Medical Practitioners Act. We operate under that legislation. We are the regulator of medical practitioners. That is our exclusive remit.

I want to touch on two of our particular statutory responsibilities that are relevant to the work of the committee. The first is that we are responsible for giving the practitioners professional guidance. The practice has been that each council, during its term, will revise and update the guide to professional conduct and ethics. This council fulfilled that responsibility two years ago by issuing the eighth edition of the guide. The guide deals specifically with the issue of open disclosure. The provisions on open disclosure were arrived at by the ethics committee. I am here with the chairman of that committee. The provisions on open disclosure were arrived at following a complete consultation with all relevant parties. It takes place in the context of an ethical guide that views medical care not as something delivered passively to a patient but as something in respect of which the patient is a full participant. The relationship is really a partnership between the patient and doctor. The particular provisions on open disclosure, which were significantly updated and expanded upon in the previous guide, are well worth noting. The ethics guide states:

Open disclosure is supported within a culture of candour. You have a duty to promote and support this culture and to support colleagues whose actions are investigated following an adverse event. If you are responsible for conducting such investigations, you should make sure they are carried out quickly, recognising that this is a stressful time for all concerned.

I simply refer the committee to our provisions on open disclosure.

We have another very important role, that is, to handle complaints that are made against doctors. There were certain questions that were put to us about how that is done. The Medical Practitioners Act is very explicit and sets out very precise procedures that must be followed when complaints are made. The practitioner who is subject to a complaint is entitled to full constitutional protections. There are very elaborate procedures put in place. All matters are put before the practitioner, who has a full opportunity to deal with whatever complaints are made. The investigation is a confidential investigation under the Act. The sanctions, at their most severe, can include an erasure and someone being taken off the register, and they can also include a suspension, whereby one is taken off the register for a period of time. There is also censure, admonishment and advice. Also, conditions can be put on a practitioner's ability to practice. These can include updating their skills, reporting to a mentor and engaging in supervised practice until the medical practitioner believes the problem has been remedied. What I must emphasise to the committee is that it is extremely important that we, as the regulator in this area, never prejudge any issue. We cannot come before the committee and say a doctor in a certain circumstance would receive a certain outcome. We cannot talk about individual cases but what we can do is expand upon the general principles that are in the ethics guide.

I thank the Chairman again for inviting us. I also thank him for recognising our particular circumstances today.