"The College alleges that Smith committed professional misconduct in that he:
* Failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession;
* Engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional;
* Incompetence;
COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO;
DR. SMITH'S IMPECCABLE RECORD AT THE COLLEGE CAN BE SEEN AT:
http://www.cpso.on.ca/docsearch/details.aspx?view=4&id=%2031811
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
A date has been set for Dr. Charles Smith's discipline hearing.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday February 1, 2011, at 11.00 AM at the College of Physicians and Surgeons headquarters in downtown Toronto;
The College alleges that Smith committed professional misconduct in that he:
* Failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession;
* Engaged in conduct or an act or omission relevant to the practice of medicine that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional;
* And that he is incompetent.
A glance at the College Web site tells us that Dr. Smith enters the hearing with a perfectly clear discipline record: No practice restrictions, no special notices, and no past findings. (Although a discipline committee was extremely disturbed by a long list of omissions and deficiencies in three cases (Jenna, Nicholas and Amber) on October 15, 2002, the College merely imposed a "caution" - which was so insignificant in the hierarchy of punishments that it was not required to be recorded in the College Register. (That explains why there are no previous findings); In retrospect, the failure of the College to impose a tougher penalty - after initially resisting jurisdiction over Dr. Smith - allowed Dr. Smith to continue his shoddy, dishonest work as a self-perceived member of the prosecution team unchecked. (It should be noted that the valiant efforts of College investigators to get to the heart of Smith's actions in the three cases were frustrated by the College's leadership of the day and the Ontario Chief Coroner's Office.)
Why now? In a sense, the hearing is moot as Dr. Smith resigned his membership in the College on August 9, 2008. I suspect, however, - and this is just a personal theory - that the College is proceeding with the hearing out of concern that he could choose to re-enroll at some time in the future. Without a registered finding of professional misconduct the College might find itself compelled to grant him admission, there being no previous findings. (I do, however, find it difficult to apprehend why the College thought it was necessary to proceed against Dr. Smith, when it decided not to proceed against former Chief Coroner Dr. James Young, and Former Deputy Chief Coroner, Dr. Jim Cairns, both of whom were under investigation by the College, and have, like Smith, resigned their membership.)
If the discipline panel find that Smith is guilty of professional misconduct it will have a choice between a variety of dispositions ranging from a caution to the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the profession.
We're watching!
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Dr. Smith — formerly the province's chief pediatric pathologist and a self-styled member of the prosecution team — whose "errors" led to innocent people being branded as child killers.
The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed Dr. Smith, along with Ontario's former chief coroner and his deputy, for their roles in wrongful prosecutions and asked the province to consider compensation.
The provincial coroner's office found evidence of errors in 20 of 45 autopsies Dr. Smith did over a 10-year period starting in the early 1990s. Thirteen resulted in criminal charges.
William Mullins-Johnson, who was among those cases, spent 12 years in prison for the rape and murder of his four-year-old niece, whose death was later attributed to natural causes.
In another case, Dr. Smith concluded a mother had stabbed her seven-year-old girl to death when it turned out to have been a dog mauling.
The inquiry heard that Dr. Smith's failings included hanging on to crucial evidence, "losing" evidence which showed his opinion was wrong and may have assisted the accused person, mistating evidence, chronic tardiness, and the catastrophic misinterpretation of findings.
The cases, along with other heart-rending stories of wrongful prosecutions based in part on Smith's testimony, also raised a host of issues about the pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-feature-cases-issues-and_15.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.coM;
