Montreal Doctor Suspended for 3 Months After Argument Over Patient’s Pronouns

A photo illustration shows a stethoscope and blood-pressure machine of a French general practitioner displayed in a doctor's office in Bordeaux Jan. 7, 2015. Reuters/Regis Duvignau

A family physician based in Montreal has been suspended for three months for professional misconduct involving a transgender patient.

The complaint against Dr. Raymond Brière, filed by Dr. Jean Pelletier, the deputy syndic of the Collège des Médecins du Québec, alleged that Dr. Brière failed to maintain impeccable conduct and ended the medical follow-up of a transgender patient in a manner that violated multiple articles of the Code of Ethics of Physicians.

Since 1980, Dr. Brière has been practicing medicine, serving in various remote regions within the province prior to his return to Montreal, where he serves over 600 patients. He obtained a family medicine specialist certification in 2010. Dr. Brière had been the primary care physician for the unnamed patient since May 2018.

In May 2022, the patient requested a testosterone prescription from Dr. Brière, according to the overview in the disciplinary decision. Dr. Brière, who said he was inexperienced in prescribing hormones for gender transition, expressed concerns about potential character changes and aggressive behavior due to testosterone, which the patient dismissed as a stereotype.

The consultation escalated into an argument. The patient claimed to be a “trans man,” but the doctor insisted on referring to the patient as female due to genetics, saying the patient’s gender identity “is in your brain.”

This interaction grew tense, with the doctor suggesting the patient leave if unhappy or in disagreement with his practice. Despite the patient correcting him, the doctor continued to address the patient using female pronouns and terms.

As the meeting concluded, the doctor, acknowledging his lack of expertise in hormone therapy, recommended a colleague but refused to facilitate the referral. He also informed the patient that he would no longer serve as the patient’s family doctor.

Dr. Brière’s case, presided over by a three-member panel led by Myriam Giroux-Del Zotto, revolved around Dr. Brière’s conduct during a consultation with the patient and his subsequent termination of medical follow-up without ensuring the patient’s continued care.

The panel, comprising Ms. Giroux-Del Zotto, Dr. Ginette Fortier, and Dr. Pierre Sylvestre, found Dr. Brière in breach under two main counts.

Firstly, the panel said he failed to maintain impeccable conduct toward the patient by exhibiting inappropriate and disrespectful behaviour, thereby violating articles 4, 17, and 18 of the Code of Ethics and article 59.2 of the Professional Code.

Secondly, he terminated the patient’s medical follow-up without ensuring that another physician or professional could continue it, contravening articles 33 and 35 of the Code of Ethics.

The panel imposed concurrent suspensions as it considered the gravity of the issue, the impact on the patient, and Dr. Brière’s professional experience: three months for the first count and two months for the second count.

The panel also ruled in favour of publishing a notice of the decision in a newspaper circulating in the area of Dr. Brière’s professional domicile.

Dr. Brière was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings and the publication expenses, adhering to the principle that the party at fault typically covers such expenses.

The Epoch Times reached out to Dr. Brière for comment but did not receive a response before press time.

There have been a number of other high-profile cases of regulatory colleges disciplining professionals. Dr. Jordan Peterson, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto’s Psychology Department and a clinical psychologist, recently lost a case in the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Mr. Peterson had sought to have rescinded the College of Psychologists of Ontario’s (CPO) order forcing him to receive social media training to keep his licence. Mr. Peterson has argued that using preferred pronouns amounts to “compelled speech.”