Skip to content
Sign In Subscribe
NZ Politics — Health — Law — COVID-19

Statement From NZDSOS on Recent Court Case: NZDSOS vs MCNZ

The absence of mainstream journalists at the court appearance of doctors challenging their regulator is noteworthy. This situation underscores the critical importance of transparency and accountability in the healthcare sector.

,   and  Reproduced with permission
2 min read
Photo by Jakayla Toney / Unsplash

NZDSOS

New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) recently participated in a critical High Court case to challenge the Medical Council of New Zealand’s Guidance Statement issued in the context of the C-19 pandemic. This court case, held on 23–24 September in Wellington, marks a significant moment in our ongoing efforts to uphold medical ethics, patient rights, and informed consent for all New Zealanders.

The court case focused on several core issues:

  1. Medical Autonomy and Ethics: We challenged the Medical Council’s directive that all doctors must be vaccinated and must promote the benefits of the Covid-19 vaccine while prohibiting ‘anti-vaccination messaging’. We argued that the Guidance Statement was used as a standard that doctors would be required to adhere to, but it had not gone through the usual process to create a true standard.
  2. Scientific Rigour and Freedom of Speech: The case highlighted the need for a clear definition of essential terms such as “anti-vaccination messaging”, “misinformation”, and “evidence-based medicine”. We believe that the lack of agreed clear definitions has led to the unjust silencing and censorship of healthcare professionals who raise legitimate concerns based on scientific evidence.
  3. Public and Professional Accountability: Affidavit evidence revealed that the Medical Council and Dental Council regarded the Covid-19 vaccine as zero-risk, dismissing any contrary evidence presented by concerned doctors. This stance has far-reaching implications for public trust in healthcare and the integrity of medical oversight bodies.
  4. Off-Label Medicines: We also asked the judge to confirm and uphold the ability of doctors to prescribe off-label medicines using their professional clinical judgement.

We are awaiting the court’s decision and understand that it may take several months. Regardless of the outcome, NZDSOS remains committed to advocating for:

  • Transparent and Honest Communication: Ensuring that all medical interventions, including vaccines, are discussed openly, with both benefits and risks clearly communicated to the public.
  • Medical Freedom and Informed Consent: Upholding the right of every individual to make informed decisions about their health without coercion or undue influence.
  • Scientific Integrity: Promoting a robust and open scientific debate where evidence can be scrutinised and discussed without fear of retribution.

The absence of mainstream journalists at the court appearance of doctors challenging their regulator is noteworthy. This situation underscores the critical importance of transparency and accountability in the healthcare sector. It invites a thoughtful examination of the media’s role in reporting such significant matters.

We extend our heartfelt thanks to our supporters, including those who have shared their personal stories and those who have stood by us through this challenging journey. Your courage and dedication inspire us to continue our work.

As we move forward, we will persist in our efforts to protect the health and rights of all New Zealanders. We call on the public, healthcare professionals, and policymakers to join us in advocating for a medical system that prioritises ethics, transparency, and the well-being of every individual.

This article was originally published by New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science.

Related

Latest