OPINION
The Medical Council is tasked with protecting the public. However, over the past four years, there appears to have been a targeted harassment of doctors who upheld their Hippocratic Oath: First do no harm.
What you can do to help preserve ethical medicine for all Kiwis
Purpose of the Medical Council
The medical council, exists to protect patients and the public and is regulated by the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (2003). This act is administered by the Ministry of Health and thus falls into the portfolios of Dr Shane Reti, Matt Doocey, David Seymour and Casey Costello.
Recently Dr Reti took the unprecedented step of replacing the Board of Health New Zealand with a commissioner. He cited serious concerns around “oversight, overspend and a deterioration in financial outlook”. However, NZDSOS has even graver concerns regarding the Ministry of Health’s oversight of the Medical Council of New Zealand.
NZDSOS posits that the medical council is failing in its purpose to protect patients and the public by its harassment of doctors. Furthermore as we have discussed previously, it appears that the medical council is not only answerable to the MOH but is also dancing to the tune of supra-national organisations which are calling the shots.
Harassment of Doctors
At least 25 doctors have been investigated by or are still undergoing investigation by the medical council for prescribing or sourcing ivermectin for the prevention or early treatment of Covid or for raising valid concerns about the official Covid response. Both of these actions are legal. Furthermore raising concerns about harms is part of the ethical duty of doctors.
It is important to note that, during its investigations, at no time did the medical council provide evidence of harm to patients or the public – except from a few stressed-out people afraid they wouldn’t get their promised jabs – nor have they provided scientific refutation or discussion regarding the concerns publicly raised by doctors. Instead they hid behind accusations of “Medical Misconduct” or “Bringing the Profession into Disrepute” for which legal defence is difficult and findings are arbitrary.
In its investigation of doctors, the medical council has often referred to its now quietly revoked guidance statement on Covid-19 vaccination, despite this statement having questionable legal standing. Many of the doctors have been referred to the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT), a quasi-legal body compiled of its own experts, leaving doctors little recourse except to appeal in the court system with its inherent costs and biases.
It is interesting to note that one of the doctors who appeared before the HPDT was found guilty of professional misconduct for speaking publicly about harms witnessed and punished by suspension for 18 months, re-education and ordered to pay costs in excess of NZ$ 200,000. This is in contrast to a doctor who had sex with a patient at his clinic and was suspended for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of only $23,000 and will not be allowed to see female patients, such was the concern, presumably, of re-offending.
Who exactly is the medical council protecting in the harassment of doctors calling for caution while dealing less harshly with a doctor who has actually harmed his patients?
It is now abundantly clear that the public of New Zealand did not benefit from either the guidance statement nor the punitive actions taken against the doctors who challenged the narrative, stood by their Hippocratic Oath or advocated for their patients by writing exemptions or prescribing ivermectin. The punishments include lengthy legal proceedings, imposition of conditions on practicing certificates, massive fines, suspensions, being struck off, and year-long periods of “re-education” paid for by the practitioner, not to mention the emotional and time resources required to defend themselves.
What NZDSOS is Doing
NZDSOS, in support of its doctor members and those doctors outside of its organisation, has initiated a High Court judicial review, questioning the status of the now-revoked medical council guidance statement which has been used as the basis for the harassment of doctors. This case will be heard on the 23 and 24th of September in the Wellington High Court.
We look forward to countering the medical council attempts at defense in court. It is time to call the dogs off our trusted doctors.
This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science.
