'Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation.
From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle."
FROM THE REPRIMAND ADMINISTERED TO CHARLES SMITH IN HIS ABSENCE BY THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: The Goudge inquiry focused largely on the flawed work of Charles 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 murderers. (He has since been thrown out of the medical profession in Ontario);
The 1,000-page report by Justice Stephen Goudge slammed 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 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, 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 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 Ontario's forensic pathology system and the reliance of the courts on expert evidence."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE; There were several empty chairs at the hearing of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to which Charles Smith had been ordered to attend this morning in order to receive his public reprimand; One belonged to Smith; The others, to his lawyers. Dr. Marc Gabel, Chairman of the five-person panel which had previously found Smith guilty of professional misconduct and incompetence, said the panel was "very disappointed" that Smith had chosen not to attend as directed. College Prosecutor Caroline Silver read a blunt one paragraph letter she had received from Smith's lawyers saying only that he would not be attending. (Smith had also chosen not to attend the hearing on February 1, 2011, at which he did not contest the charges laid against him by the College); Ms. Silver told the panel she called the lawyers and was informed that they would not be attending. Gabel stressed that revocation of Smith's licence to practice medicine in Ontario was "the most serious penalty" that the College could order, that the reprimand was the College's opportunity "to express on behalf of the profession and the public our abhorrance of Dr. Smith's misconduct," and that the panel had decided to read the reprimand it would have administered were he in attendance. Although, in this Blog's view the College failed to properly protect the public from Smith years ago when it had the opportunity, the reprimand administered by this panel this morning appears to me to ring true and from the heart in recognition of the horrible irreparable harm that Smith has caused to so many parents and caregivers.
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE REPRIMAND;
"Dr. Smith, this panel has heard the uncontested facts concerning your professional misconduct and incompetence and the effects of this behaviour on so many people.
In your practice of forensic pediatric pathology:
0: You failed to gather relevant information, undertake
appropriate investigations, and properly detail relevant
information;
0: You expressed opinions about the cause of injuries or death
that were either contrary to or not supported by the pathology
evidence.
0: You expressed erroneous opinions about the cause of death based
on non-specific findings, and misinterpreted autopsy
findings;
0: You referenced aspects of the social history of the parents
or caregivers of the deceased child which were irrelevant to the
pathology;
0: You attempted to unfairly shift responsibility for your failures to others;
0: You failed to create, maintain and preserve pathology
materials relevant to criminal investigations in the manner
expected of a pathologist.
0: You offered opinions outside of the area of your expertise, and gave evidence that was unbalanced or overly dogmatic.
0: You gave opinions that were unscientific, speculative, unsubstantiated and not
based on pathological findings;
0: You provided opinions to coroners, the police, Crown Attorneys and the Court in a manner that was misleading and unfairly critical of other experts.
0: You acted as an advocate in cases rather than expressing an unbiased opinion;
0: You failed to adequately prepare for court;
0: You failed to respond to inquiries from regulating bodies, including the CPSO, (the College) with the candour expected of a physician, regarding your involvement in cases under investigation;
0: Your many failures compromised the administration of justice and caused harm to many individuals and their families.
You had a duty to the public, to the administration of justice and to your profession. Your failure in all these aspects is abominable to this Panel to your fellow physicians and, as importantly, to the public.
Your misconduct has resulted in unmitigated pain and suffering for so many people and their families. You have subjected these individuals to emotional, financial and social devastation.
From the very beginning of our medical education we learned the principle of "Primum non nocere", First of all, do no harm. No matter what we learned thereafter, that remained the basic foundation governing our practice. You clearly ignored this fundamental principle.
Your transgressions were egregious in nature, repulsive in result, and caused irreparable harm to many innocent victims.
The medical profession strives to act morally, ethically, and with the best interest of our patients in the forefront of our actions. As physicians we are sometimes called upon to serve the administration of justice in our courts. By your actions you abysmally failed to do so in these areas and have subsequently disgraced our profession. We publicly deplore and denounce your behaviour, Nothing we can do or say will repair the damage you have caused to the lives of the persons you have injured. What we can do is express, through this reprimand, the abhorrence of your profession and the public for your misconduct."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
