The College of Physicians of Quebec (CMQ) will await the verdict of its disciplinary board before ruling on the case of DD Isabelle Desormeau, this anesthesiologist involved in a police investigation for “euthanasia” in Laval, whose identity was revealed Wednesday after two years of proceedings.
In recent years, Mme Desormeau, who no longer practices since the events, has increased the number of legal requests for his identity to be protected, saying he is worried about the “prejudice” that the reverse could cause him. In early December, she even went to the Supreme Court, where her application to appeal a judgment of the Superior Court on this subject was rejected.
It was Judge Hélène Di Salvo of the Superior Court who finally lifted the publication bans against the DD Desormeau, during a brief hearing Wednesday noon. The two doctors considered as “witnesses” in the investigation, Dr Hubert Veilleux and the Dr Joseph Dahine, can also be appointed from now on.
Isabelle Desormeau is at the heart of a case revealed by Press last July at Cité-de-la-Santé in Laval, where several upset staff members described the death of an 84-year-old man in an operating theater ruled by discord in 2019 as “euthanasia”. Such a shock was that an official of the establishment alerted the police, who opened an investigation into the murder.
At the material time, the Office of the Syndic had filed a disciplinary complaint with the Disciplinary Board against the anesthesiologist. But four years later, this complaint has “not yet proceeded before the disciplinary council because of various preliminary procedures which are beyond our control”, explains the spokesperson of the CMQ, Leslie Labranche, citing in particular the legal heaviness folder.
When a physician is the subject of a disciplinary complaint, the College’s disciplinary council must judge “whether the physician is guilty or not guilty”. If he is guilty, sanction hearings are held. Thus, if the DD Desormeau is found guilty, she could face various levels of sanctions provided for in section 156 of the Professional Code, ranging from a simple reprimand to permanent radiation.
Two weeks ago, the Laval police were refused access to this disciplinary investigation file. The Court in fact rejected the request of the police force on November 25, ruling that the investigation file of the CMQ’s syndic is protected by a privilege “in absolute scope”. Judge Di Salvo also indicated that the police “could have done more” in their investigative work, which currently seems to be at a standstill.
Recall of facts
This case dates back to October 31, 2019. That day, an 84-year-old man, whose identity is still protected, went to the Cité-de-la-Santé hospital for stomach aches. He was diagnosed with “intestinal obstruction requiring surgery”. The Dr Hubert Veilleux, who is a general surgeon, and the DD Desormeau meet with the patient to explain the risks associated with the operation. The man consents to “Objective B: prolong life through limited care” care.
The operation begins around 2 a.m. The patient is sedated. During the operation, the Dr Veilleux discovers “necrosis in large segments of his small intestine.” He then joins a family member. On the phone, the Dr Veilleux explains to the patient’s niece – whose identity is also protected – that “continuing the operation would require the patient to have a bag” and that he be hospitalized for a prolonged period. It was therefore decided to “conclude the operation and offer palliative treatment”.
Back in the operating room, the surgeon “closes the patient’s abdominal wall”. But it was then that a debate arose between the anesthesiologist and nurses. The first of these nurses questions “the usefulness of finding a room for the patient when he could be taken directly to the morgue”, repeating that the man “has no one to accompany him” in care. palliative. A nurse retorts that the patient has a daughter.
Despite everything, the anesthesiologist chooses to give the patient an injection and disconnect him from the ventilator at around 4:45 a.m. At the time of the injection, the nurse claims to have “said a few times that this is not the procedure to be done. follow and that the patient must be returned upstairs to die with dignity ”.