Doctors' group should pursue ex-psychiatrist
Agency isn't legally bound to do so but should be morally
Joey Thompson, The Province
Published: Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Members of the psychiatric community should do what's morally just and take their findings about a disgraced ex-psychiatrist to the city's sex- crimes investigators for review.

Police don't have to wait for the three victims of sex pervert Richard Golden to surface before igniting a criminal investigation into the man's shameful conduct, sex-crimes unit boss Sgt. Darcy Taylor told me.

The complaint could just as easily come from officials with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the watchdog agency that recently scrubbed Golden from the membership list after finding he sexually abused three emotionally fragile patients for many years.

"If the college wants to talk to us we're all ears," Taylor said.

"They're not legally compelled to, but morally, ethically, I'd say so."

Ditto here; I think it's their duty.

But deputy registrar Douglas Blackman claims the law that governs the profession makes disclosing to police impossible.

Blackman said Sec. 70 of the Medical Practitioners Act preserves the privacy of all matters that led to the inquiry committee's decision to expel Golden, even though it publicized the details of his slimy, offensive conduct in its final report.

But in reading the act, I spotted what looks like an exception to the hush-up clause: Confidentiality can be set aside if the executive committee deems disclosure in the public interest.

And this obviously is.

"I think people see privacy issues where none exist," Attorney-General Wally Oppal agreed yesterday.

"If there's evidence a crime may have been committed, surely that would trump privacy concerns."

Oppal said the B.C. government always encourages victims to come forward and complain to police, but if that's not likely, there's no reason why a brief note from college officials with a copy of their public findings attached wouldn't do the trick.

But that's not the only area where privacy rules appear to be shielding Golden from public exposure.

A Ministry of Health official said she couldn't answer any questions about the shamed doctor's billing habits, citing B.C.'s protection of privacy laws.

I wanted to know whether ministry auditors were digging into Golden's past billing years, and if not, why not.

After all, college investigators found the Broadway psychiatrist had persistently sexually exploited the three patients during treatment visits in his office and elsewhere for several years.

Were these visits included in the $446,400 he billed the Medical Services Plan in fiscal year 2004/05? Likely, considering not doing so might have raised the suspicions of office staff. But the government won't say.

Furthermore, according to attending psychiatrists' court affidavits, Golden was developing at least three so-called crippling, major psychiatric disorders during the time he treated these women -- as well as a score of other patients --and was billing the public for all his services. Surely that needs looking into, too.

"I can't acknowledge or comment on any practitioner's personal billing practices without the practitioner's consent," spokeswoman Sarah Plank told me.

As if Golden is going to agree.