Naturopathic doctor banned from ‘taking steps towards the removal of a patient’s clothing’: B.C. college

A file photo of a physician’s examination room. (CTV News)

A naturopathic doctor in Vancouver has been banned from “taking steps towards the removal of a patient’s clothing,” after a complaint to his professional college.

The College of Complementary Health Professionals of B.C. imposed temporary conditions on John Pidutti’s practice in a summary protection order issued earlier this week.

The complaint that prompted the order was received on March 16 and has not been proven. The conditions are set to remain in place until the college completes its investigation of the matter.

A description of the reasons for the order attached to Pidutti’s entry in the college’s registry does not elaborate on the allegations against him, saying only that he allegedly “violated informed consent and professional boundaries standards.”

The summary protection order took effect on June 15. It prohibits Pidutti “from taking steps towards the removal of a patient’s clothing, including but not limited to unbuttoning, unzipping, or unfastening any article of a patient’s clothing himself.”

“For clarity, if the respondent considers it necessary to access a patient’s skin for a therapeutic purpose and that skin is covered, the respondent must explain the area(s) he requires access to and the purpose of the access before he requests the patient to remove or unfasten the clothing themselves,” the document reads.

Pidutti must also post notices about the conditions of his practice on all online booking pages associated with him, as well as in all waiting rooms and treatment rooms where he works.

He is required to provide the college with the names and contact details of all patients he treats.

According to the CCHPBC registry, Pidutti has been a practising naturopathic doctor since 2004. His employer is listed as Springs Eternal Natural Health Clinic in Vancouver.

A panel of the college’s investigation committee determined that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent’s continued, unrestricted practice poses a significant risk of harm to the public,” according to the document.

“The panel determined that targeted restrictions on the respondent’s practice are a necessary and proportionate measure to safeguard patient safety while the matter is investigated,” it reads. “In reaching this conclusion, the panel considered the seriousness of the allegations and the respondent’s understanding of the need to maintain rigorous professional boundaries.”