The general practitioner who made homophobic remarks on the internet will have to pay a fine of 1,000 euros.
For having made homophobic comments on Facebook, a general practitioner was sanctioned with a one-month ban on practice, half of which suspended, and a 1,000 euros fine by the Council of the Order of Burgundy. The Côte-d’Or doctor appeared on June 22 following a complaint filed by the association Le Refuge.
The facts go back to December 26, 2016. Dr. Huet tells on the Facebook page of the group “Doctors are not pigeons” to have “come close” to a medical error. He sent a patient with an anal fissure to the gastroenterologist. However, it was a syphilitic chancre. To justify this mistake, the practitioner explains that the patient was homosexual, but ignored him, adding: “The thing is, the patient is homosexual. Not a “crazy” type homo with overly playful manners, more of a common man, suddenly, I didn’t see anything. And it was not marked in the file. “
For his peers, the general practitioner violated 3 articles of the Public Health Code concerning discrimination in care and respect for human dignity, including article R.4127-31, which stipulates that all doctors must abstain, even outside the exercise of his profession, of any act likely to bring it into disrepute.
Web code of ethics
The Council of the Order of Côte-d’Or also recalled the recommendations issued by the National Order of Physicians for the use of the web and social networks. “Whenever a doctor posts a personal comment, mood or story, he must be careful not to disrespect both patients and his colleagues or any audience targeted by his publication. If humor and emotion are characteristic of these writings, they should not slip into mockery, offensive irony, stigmatization of a social category, public insult or even defamation. “
The CNOM recalls that, according to article R.4127-31 of the CSP relating to medical ethics, any doctor who acts in such a way as to bring the profession into disrepute must be warned that he may have to answer for it before the disciplinary courts, even if the he act was committed outside his professional practice but using his qualification or his title. “
.
