2.20 By virtue of entering this phrase I shall have protected myself from any legal sanction, redress, or remedy, that you may seek to impose. I suggest to le Ministre that it is not in his interests, my interests, nor in the interests of any citizen of Québec, that the Collège des médecins du Québec be permitted to erect its own alternate legal jurisdiction.
2.21 I now direct the attention of le Ministre to the July 15th letter from the Collège des médecins du Québec. Paragraph 4 states “we must inform you that financial compensations do not fall within the competence of the Collège but belong exclusively to the civil courts.”
2.22 I note that there is a direct contradiction in the position taken by the Collège des médecins du Québec between their letters of July 15th and September 20th 2013. It may please le Ministre to inquire of the Collège des médecins du Québec how they came to change their position on the liability of their members under the law. This is not a minor mistake, not a lapsus de langue. It has profound implications.
2.23 Let us now turn our attention to other matters. In Exhibit C Item 1 page 2, Dr. X makes the statement: “difficult to justify the whole picture by the MVA.”
2.24 May it please le Ministre to note the sleight of hand in operation here. On page 1 of this same document Dr. X enters the claim that he has no “medico-legal” expertise. Let us make the presumption that what Dr. X seeks to say is that he lacks the type of forensic knowledge and engineering expertise required to properly analyze and determine cause and effect in a motor vehicle accident. On page 2 of the same document Dr. X completely ignores the fact of his prior claim to the lack of any professional expertise in these subject areas and blithely proceeds to pronounce his unsupported opinion that the patients constellation of symptoms are not justified by the MVA: “difficult to justify the whole picture by the MVA.” By this statement Dr. X acts to exclude the MVA as a source of the patients symptomology and he does so precisely when he has declared his lack of competence to make any such interpretation of the facts.
2.25 In making these contradictory statements Dr. X has violated Clause 25 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians to wit: “A physician must not interfere in the personal affairs of his patient in matters unrelated to the field of health.” [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 25.]
2.26 In making these two statements Dr. X has explicitly contravened Clause 25. He has pronounced on a matter which is not relevant to the practice of medicine and he has entered a statement that serves to exclude the motor vehicle accident of March 6th 2013 as a cause of my injuries.
2.27 I note that Dr. X’s action constitutes a direct contravention of the core Hippocratic oath which is to do no harm toward the patient. In other words, if the physician does not have understanding of the matter at hand then the appropriate course of action is to withhold pronouncing on the matter until there is conclusive evidence available on which to base an accurate and responsible pronouncement. Stated simply, it is the paramount interest of the medical profession to do no harm to a patient.
2.28 This principle is codified in Clause 3 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians which states: “A physicians paramount duty is to protect and promote the health and well-being of the persons he attends to, both individually and collectively.” [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 3.]
2.29 By virtue of his admittedly unsubstantiated statement, unsupported by any professional expertise whatsoever, Dr. X has caused me further injury in that his statement may be used by SAAQ to evade the provision of rehabilitation support or any other form of benefit available to me. This causes me direct harm, prolongs the period of my injury, and delays my return to work.
2.30 My interaction with Dr. X in his clinic did not extend past 20 mins. The majority of this time was devoted to the conduct of a physical examination by Dr X in which he gathered details of height, weight, etc. The details of the March 6th accident were collected in a block of time not more than 30 seconds or at most one minute in duration. Dr. X made his pronouncement based on the limited amount of evidence I provided to him during that brief interval and it is on this brief interaction that he has based his comment.
2.31 This constitutes a violation of Clause 6 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians which states: “A physician must practice his profession in accordance with scientific principles.” [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 6.]
2.32 I defy Dr. X, or the Collège des médecins du Québec, to explain how a review of accident details of less than one minutes duration serves to provide any degree of factual basis for the physician to make any form of pronouncement in regard to the physics and bio-mechanical factors associated with the accident of March 6th 2011.
2.33 I have spent a total of fourteen years in accident investigation with both the Canadian Coast Guard and in the East Coast offshore oil industry. I have investigated a wide range of accidents and written final reports which hold probative value in a court of law as the official record of the incident. I have served as a witness to police forces who must gather evidence in regard to the death of any person. I lack Dr X’s ability to determine causality in the space of a few scant seconds with no reference to any hard factual data of any kind.
2.34 In my submissions to SAAQ I have provided them with factual data covering everything from meteorological conditions, impact speeds, relative weights of bullet and target, coefficients of friction, calculations of stopping distance, and a description of the the physical forces acting upon me at the moment of impact. In sum total this exceeds 100 pages of text and supporting diagrams, tables, and photographs. I would gladly have provided this information to Dr. X had he requested it. He made no such request. In the absence of any access to a detailed accounting of the factors of the accident of March 6th 2011 Dr. X’s pronouncement lacks any scientific evidential factual basis.
2.35 I draw the attention of le Minstre to Clause 5 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians which states: “a physician must discharge his professional obligations with competence, integrity, and loyalty.’ [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 5.] By his virtue of his own statement Dr. X has declared his incompetence in regard to medico-legal matters. Dr. X now demonstrates a lack of integrity in failing to acknowledge the conflict between the two elements of his clinical record. In so doing Dr. X has proved himself disloyal to his patient. Were I to have known Dr. X would seek to make pronouncement on matters outside of the normal patient-physician relationship, matters well outside the discipline of medicine, then I would have made all of my exhibits, tables, graphs, and photographs available to him. I did not take this step as I assumed he was a physician engaged solely in the practice of medicine.
2.36 This same action on the part of Dr. X creates a second conflict with Clause 25 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians which states: “A physician must not interfere in the personal affairs of his patient in matters unrelated to the field of medicine.” [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 25.]
2.37 It is further noted that Dr. X rendered these opinions in advance of any results being obtained from any form of para-clinical testing. Dr. X first proclaims that he lacks all expertise, then he proceeds to make pronouncement in precisely the area for which he claims no expertise, and he takes this action in advance of obtaining evidence from any form of para-clinical testing. Rendering an opinion in an area outside of his discipline in advance of any facts derived from testing is a further violation of Clause 6 of the Collège des médecins du Québec, Code of Ethics of Physicians which states: “A physician must practise his profession in accordance with scientific principles.” [O.C. 1213-2002, s. 6.]
2.38 In his clinical record Dr Halle indicates that he seeks to have performed the following para-clinical tests: MRI, EEG and EMG. Of this suite of tests the electromyography was never performed, The electroencephalography was not an ictal recording, nor was it a sleep deprived EEG as was requested by Dr Hulley (see Exhibit G, Items 1 and 2), and the magnetic resonance imaging is irrelevant to my injury except for its role in diagnosis by exclusion.
2.39 I am sure the Collège des médecins du Québec will be aghast at my entry into their preserve of specialized knowledge But my first love remains epistemology, a field of study which grants license to examine in detail every aspect of any knowledge domain. If Dr. X has license to pronounce on matters in which he has no expertise, I see no reason not to extend similar license to myself. It is, after all, my body and it should be clear at this point that I cannot rely on the actions of members of the Collège des médecins du Québec to protect it.