Vancouver, Canada
A Vancouver massage therapist is banned from treating female patients until he completes remedial education after he admitted to “palpating a patient’s breasts without clinical justification or consent,” according to a consent resolution with the professional regulator.
During an appointment on January 3, 2025, David St. Loe failed to communicate the intent of massaging her breast, failed to provide a clinical rationale for it, and did not obtain her informed consent, according to the College of Complementary Health Professionals of B.C.
The agreement says St. Loe “performed the palpation in a matter more consistent with a breast examination than with a recognized therapeutic massage technique” and the touching “was not consistent with therapeutic intent.”
Also during the same appointment, the college says St. Loe admitted he made unprofessional and inappropriate comments “by sharing overly personal details about his life” which included “the topics of Viagra and marijuana.”
The patient made a complaint about the massage therapist’s conduct on January 6, and as a result the College banned St. Loe from treating female patients while it investigated the allegations.
That prohibition will remain until St. Loe completes remedial education on boundaries, consent, ethics and professionalism, and has a one-on-one review with a practice advisor, according to the consent agreement dated August 20.
In addition, the College formally reprimanded St. Loe and suspended his registration for seven days. He must also pay $350 to cover part of the costs of the investigation.
“The conduct represents a fundamental disregard for professional boundaries, informed consent, and the principles of patient-centered care,” the College wrote.
“Palpating a patient’s breasts without clinical justification or consent, and in a manner inconsistent with therapeutic intent, undermines public trust, compromises patient safety, and violates the core responsibilities of a regulated health professional.”
The College said it was satisfied that the terms of the agreement would protect the public.
