We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Expelled from his profession, financially ruined, officially deemed to be a a sexual abuser

So what did the perp actually do?

Dental Hygienist Loses License, Labeled Sex Offender For Sleeping With Client – His Wife

Note that Alexandru Tanase’s story involves that modern equivalent of the Roman delator, the Facebook nark:

After one of the treatments, his wife, Sandi Mullins, posted a picture with Tanase. The former dental hygienist wrote on Facebook that in the “summer of 2016, a complaint was filed with the CDHO by a former friend and Facebook acquaintance of my wife’s, who saw a photo my wife posted, saying how happy she was with her dentist and what an amazing dental hygienist she had.”

21 comments to Expelled from his profession, financially ruined, officially deemed to be a a sexual abuser

  • Ian Bennett

    The story actually says that he lost his licence not because he slept with a client but because he treated his wife; the same event, but different ramifications.

  • Mr Ecks

    WTF difference does that make? The link is broken.

    Is the Poet Lorry-Yet to be sacked if he composes an Ode for his missus?

  • CaptDMO

    “…if he composes an Ode for his missus?”
    Only if she’s being coy about it.
    Oh wait. That was mistress.

  • His wife should have claimed to be a trans man who was gay. The College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario would not have dared ask any questions in that case – even if their logical reasoning powers had allowed them to formulate any. 🙂

    The above is not (entirely) a joke. Either this has some some hidden agenda backstory or the administrators of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario are so cringingly terrified of being accused of any of today’s hot-button issues that no-one had the (very, very slight) courage required to voice a murmur of common sense. If the latter explanation is true, it follows that any strategy that would have required them to take a similar risk to pursue the case could have protected the couple.

    BTW, is the term ‘jobsworth’ known across the pond?

  • Agammamon

    Ian Bennett
    October 10, 2019 at 12:28 pm

    The story actually says that he lost his licence not because he slept with a client but because he treated his wife; the same event, but different ramifications.

    He lost his license because he treated a client he was sleeping with – his wife. The regulation prohibits dental hygienists (but not dentists, for some reason) from having sexual relations with their clients.

    That’s why the suspension came with a ‘sexual misconduct’ note in it.

    Niall Kilmartin
    October 10, 2019 at 5:42 pm

    BTW, is the term ‘jobsworth’ known across the pond?

    Its known – but mostly by people who frequent UK sites. Its not in common use, at least in the US.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “Either this has some some hidden agenda backstory or the administrators of the College of Dental Hygienists of Ontario are so cringingly terrified of being accused of any of today’s hot-button issues that no-one had the (very, very slight) courage required to voice a murmur of common sense.”

    I’d have said it was neither. The linked story explains the problem. It’s because of the Regulated Health Professionals Act, a law that was introduced to stop doctors and dentists abusing their patients (or at least, being ‘unprofessional’ with them) that was evidently badly drafted and forgot to make an exception for pre-existing wives and girlfriends (or husbands, boyfriends, or sundry partners). There have been some efforts to correct the situation, mostly in other states, but the particular state he works in has been slow making the proposed corrections to the law.

    The problem isn’t with the college, it’s with the lawmakers – first for making a stupid law, second for failing to make the sensible exception, third for being slow to clean up their mess.

    On the one hand, when laws are obviously stupid, one can argue for everyone quietly ignoring them. But that makes it an ongoing risky lottery, and doesn’t fix the real problem, which is the law. To fix the law, they need to generate maximum adverse publicity for the lawmakers, to put political pressure on them. Applying the stupid law, and then splashing it all over the newspapers that they were forced to do this stupid thing by the stupid incompetents in government is perhaps most likely to have the desired effect.

    Maybe. I don’t know. But that’s what it looks like to me.

  • lairdb

    Agammamon
    October 10, 2019 at 6:09 pm

    Niall Kilmartin
    October 10, 2019 at 5:42 pm

    BTW, is the term ‘jobsworth’ known across the pond?

    Its known – but mostly by people who frequent UK sites. Its not in common use, at least in the US.

    …and curiously, I can’t come up with an American English equivalent. Work-to-rule is similar, but has entirely different connotations. I’m not sure there’s a corresponding concept.

  • Fraser Orr

    Nullius in Verba
    Maybe. I don’t know. But that’s what it looks like to me.

    Your analysis seems plausible NIV. Shame about the human sacrifice necessary to make it happen.

  • Paul Marks

    First of all there should be no “license” to lose – the Common Law knows no such “crime” as practicing a trade without a piece of paper called a “license” (Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke – the Case of Dr Bonham 1610). But we are where we are – and to lose a license for this is utterly demented.

    If the West is not to collapse into the Caste society of the late Roman Empire (and the Byzantine Empire) then this mad statute law crime-without-a-victim (and, even worse, regulations made by officials) must stop.

    As for the P.C. aspect – the whole “Woke” “Social Justice” Frankfurt School of Marxism doctrine must be REJECTED.

    But many mainstream Conservatives will not do this – will not reject this Frankfurt School of Marxism stuff (they just try and make it a bit more “moderate”), they will not even call it by its correct name, and hush anyone who does honestly use the name of this stuff.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Just to be clear, the story at The Daily Wire tells us that (my boldface)

    The New York Daily News reported that Tanase “confessed to cleaning the teeth of Sandi Mullins … on several occasions between April 2015 and August 2016.” The two were engaged at the time and are currently married.

    Along with my medical practice as an oncologist, I also am widely known for my perfect and 100% informed expertise on all Canadian laws, and in particular laws about dental hygienists who have carnal relations with their patients.

    However — I don’t know whether it matters, but at the time of the “infraction,” the report states that gentleman was treating not his wife but his fiancée.

    I have no idea if this matters under the Ontario (where else!) law, but I can see how a woman might be sleeping with a man under duress, which duress might even extend to her acceptance of the status of “fiancée and even of his subsequent marriage to her.

    Not that I have any reason whatsoever to think that’s the case here. In fact I assume it’s not. Also, I see nothing indicating that the purported “victim” of this “abuse” has ever made a complaint even informally, let alone to law enforcement.

    I just like to keep things straight, and “wife” just isn’t the same thing as “fiancée.”

    .

    No, I’m not being Sexist with the him’n’her language. A woman could extort or even rape a man. (Never mind the mechanics.) But the case in point is man against woman, and it’s easier not to have to mess with the constant “him or her” and “her or him” (and note that calling them both, as individuals, “they” would hardly unmuddy the waters).

  • Fraser Orr

    Julie near Chicago
    I just like to keep things straight, and “wife” just isn’t the same thing as “fiancée.”

    You may be right JnC. But it doesn’t really matter. The purpose of these types of regulation are to prevent an abuse of power relationship, and if there was a pre-existing relationship, that is obviously total bunk.

    And seriously, I like my dental hygienist, and they make a valuable contribution to society, but I can say with some certainly that she has absolutely no power relationship over me. Well, except when she has that metal spike in my mouth, but I doubt the molestation that lead to this action actually took place during the cleaning. (Though god knows somebody probably has that weird kink.)

    I keep wanting to come up with some line about “shame about the photo since he spent so much time cleaning up the crime scene”, but that would be just tacky and inappropriate.

  • bobby b

    ” . . . I like my dental hygienist, and they make a valuable contribution to society, but I can say with some certainly that she has absolutely no power relationship over me.”

    To be fair, this “power relationship” concern grew out of some very bad situations – think psychiatrists, etc. – and so all “professions” were encouraged to deal with it explicitly in their own governance. As a young lawyer, I filed some legal papers on behalf of my soon-to-be wife, and received a bland admonition letter from the bar association for it. Application of that rule to my circumstances was mindless and a waste of time – but I could understand why the rule existed, and could understand that the enforcement of explicit rules ought not allow a transgressor to decide why it shouldn’t apply to them. I broke a rule about which I knew, as did this hygienist.

    The punishment in this case was indefensible, of course.

    As for applying this to hygienists – when word came down that all “professionals” ought to adopt these rules, well, everyone who needs a license likes to think of themselves as “professionals.” Lots of barely-profession-level fields adopted the rules to prove that they were truly “professionals.” It was an ego thing. Egos can be costly. 😕

  • Nicholas (Unlicenced Joker) Gray

    I am curious- did she pay him? Maybe she doesn’t meet the technical definition of a ‘client’ if no money changed hands. Do Dentists dent for free, as a hobby?

  • Nullius in Verba

    “Shame about the human sacrifice necessary to make it happen.”

    Indeed. Although I imagine that with this story out there in the press to point to, he’s as likely to get sympathy as condemnation in his search for an alternative job. Another reason for doing it, of course.

    “I broke a rule about which I knew, as did this hygienist.”

    The hygienist knew about the rule but had been told by a colleague that the rules had been changed. Didn’t check, and it turned out they hadn’t in his state.

    Ignorance of the law is no defence.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Fraser, you write

    “…if there was a pre-existing relationship, that is obviously total bunk.”

    It’s not obvious to me! It’s entirely possible that the carnal relationship, even the implied engagement itself, occurred under duress. The fact that you and I and probably nearly all of our readers would put the chances of that at millions-to-one doesn’t make it impossible.

    It’s not as if there were no form for this sort of thing! … as has been pointed out above.

    Besides, my whole point is that it’s important to question all questionable aspects of any report, and this particular one is misleading where it talks about Miss Mullins as the man’s wife, which she was not (per the report) at the time of the alleged misbehaviour — but you would have to read the quoted material to find that out.

    The report is thus misleading, and the D.W. should be called out on it. And we readers ought to remain skeptical about almost everything we read.

    Failing to do so is one of the reasons why people got all in a lather about global cooling, global warming, peak oil, the dangers of alar butter bacon meat, and on and on and on.

    It’s also why we have defense attorneys as well as prosecutorial attorneys. And vice-versa.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Speaking of “jobsworth,” not to mention “the banality of evil”*:

    A jobsworth is a person who uses their job description in a deliberately uncooperative way, or who seemingly delights in acting in an obstructive or unhelpful manner. The term can also be applied to those who uphold petty rules even at the expense of humanity or common sense.

    “Jobsworth” is a British colloquial[1][2] word derived from the phrase “I can’t do that, it’s more than my job’s worth”, meaning taking the initiative and performing an action that is beyond what the person feels is in their job description. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “A person in authority (esp. a minor official) who insists on adhering to rules and regulations or bureaucratic procedures even at the expense of common sense.”[1] Jonathon Green similarly defines “jobsworth” as “a minor factotum whose only status comes from enforcing otherwise petty regulations”.[3]

    The term remains in use, particularly in the UK, to characterise inflexible employees, petty rule-following and excessive administration, and is generally used in a pejorative context.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobsworth

    *See

    https://www.samizdata.net/2019/10/south-park-says-sorry/#comment-789467

  • Fraser Orr

    @bobby b
    To be fair, this “power relationship” concern grew out of some very bad situations

    Oh yes, I didn’t mean to imply that such ethics rules were always wrong, there are plainly cases where they should apply. I was more pointing out how they are completely ridiculous for this profession. But you already said that.

    Julie near Chicago
    It’s not obvious to me! It’s entirely possible that the carnal relationship, even the implied engagement itself, occurred under duress.

    Well yes of course. But if she was sleeping with the guy before the services were started it is hardly reasonable to think that it was the power relationship created by the service was the cause of it, unless he had a time travel machine in his office as well as the little squrity thing and the little mouth vacuum cleaner.

    Besides, my whole point is that it’s important to question all questionable aspects of any report

    Your diligence is appreciated, and I agree that one point of error is a reason to pique skepticism. Just this error doesn’t seem particularly material to the matter at hand.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Fraser,

    “… it is hardly reasonable to think ….”

    Who dragged reason into this dog’s-breakfast? It is to laugh!!! 😆

    Still, as they say, “it is difficult to argue” with your point. :>)))

  • Rob

    The regulation prohibits dental hygienists (but not dentists, for some reason) from having sexual relations with their clients.

    I presume because the dentists’ ‘union’ has more muscle and knocked this on the head.

    Anyway, I’m looking forward to the gay hygienist being fired for treating his gay partner, the association will of course not shirk from such an act.

  • Nullius in Verba

    “the association will of course not shirk from such an act.”

    Why would they? It’s the same law.

    There seems to be some weird misunderstanding that this story is about #woke moralising. It’s not.

    “All codes of ethics set up by medical professional bodies prohibit sexual relationships between a doctor and a current patient.”

    https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/18/5/511/664883

    It’s a standard part of medical ethics – more akin to anti-bribery and corruption legislation. The problem is that doctor-patient romantic relationships are both messed up emotionally by the interaction with the psychology of doctor-patient relationships, and cause problems with professional impartiality and neutrality on the medical/professional side. When there’s a strong romantic attachment, doctors are liable to consider their own personal interests in their decision-making, not just the interests of the patient. (Like, what if your doctor secretly suspects you are cheating on her, and you go to her for treatment?) There are also privacy issues (your doctor has access to your medical records), legal liability issues (can you sue?) and fiscal responsibility (your doctor can prescribe the more expensive drugs). Your doctor can sign you off sick from work, or endorse your insurance claim. And so on. Whenever there is a professional duty to be impartial and neutral, professional-client romantic relationships are a no-no.

    There is a strong argument that where the romantic relationship is prior to the doctor-patient relationship, and where the treatment in question isn’t one with strong ethical issues requiring strict neutrality/impartiality, then an exception ought to be made. Clearly this principle has been accepted by the rulemakers because the laws in some states had been changed to allow for this, but so far only incompletely and inconsistently. The hygienist in question misunderstood the rules, and thought the rules had been changed to allow it when it hadn’t.

    This sort of ethical/moral restriction on relationships is more conservative in flavour than it is liberal. Progressives reckon it should be OK for anyone to have sex with anyone or anything. Conservatives are more inclined to respect professional boundaries and ideas of duty and responsibility. And I highly doubt that such conservatives would be more enraged by rules stopping a gay doctor-patient relationship than a straight one.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>