In October 2018, Marie-Louise Fitrion’s experience during childbirth took a traumatic turn when she awoke to an obstetrician, Dr. Esther Park, performing an invasive procedure without consent. This incident triggered painful memories of her own childhood sexual assault. Fitrion recently shared her experience as part of an ongoing investigation into Dr. Park’s medical practices, which revealed severe issues, including improper sterilization of medical instruments at her clinic and allegations of abuse by former patients. Following these revelations, Dr. Park resigned from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), but the lack of public details regarding the complaints has stirred concern among her patients.
Patients previously reluctant to file formal complaints have expressed frustration with the regulatory system that mandates them to prove harm before action can be taken. Some, like Fitrion, eventually reported their experiences, seeking to shed light on their trauma and hold Dr. Park accountable. Many patients voiced their belief that regulatory bodies have historically failed to adequately monitor Dr. Park’s practice despite complaints dating back several years. They have since called for an independent review to assess the regulatory oversight affecting patient care, although initial recommendations for such a review were dismissed.
Dr. Park’s resignation came amid investigations into serious infection control issues, as Toronto Public Health noted that medical instruments used in her practice were not properly disinfected. In her resignation notice, Park acknowledged that public complaints had prompted the CPSO’s investigation, though details remained opaque to the public. Ethical experts suggest that easy access to information about doctors under investigation is vital for public safety, emphasizing the need for regular audits similar to those performed in restaurants to ensure quality care in healthcare settings.
Fitrion’s traumatic experience with Dr. Park included an unwarranted examination that left her feeling violated and confused during a vulnerable time. Professionals highlight the necessity of obtaining informed consent, especially for procedures performed on patients with histories of trauma, which Dr. Park seemingly overlooked. This is a critical standard in medical practice, emphasizing the importance of communication and patient autonomy in healthcare settings.
Several other patients have shared equally troubling accounts of mistreatment by Dr. Park, with complaints that echo Fitrion’s experience. Issues ranged from a lack of informed consent during painful procedures to inadequate post-operative care. Some have likened their experiences to “gynecologist violence,” underscoring a pervasive problem in women’s healthcare where patients often feel dehumanized. The lack of proper care can have lasting impacts on patients’ mental health and trust in the healthcare system, especially notable for those with backgrounds of abuse.
In light of the emerging patterns of neglect, patients like Zahra Bakhsh and Karin Martin have reached out to government officials to advocate for necessary changes in the regulatory landscape governing medical practices in Ontario. They argue that the existing system must evolve to ensure higher standards of patient care, accountability, and transparency—especially when trust is a fundamental aspect of medical treatment. Victims of Dr. Park’s practice hope these efforts will elevate the conversation around medical regulations and patient rights, aiming for systemic changes that can prevent similar experiences from occurring in the future.
