Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that threatens doctors with suspension or disqualification from practice if they contradict the “scientific consensus” on COVID-19 and disseminate “misinformation.”
As we know, the words “scientific” and “consensus” should never be used together. Remember when the “consensus” was that thalidomide was a proven treatment for pregnant women’s morning sickness, only for their children to be born without limbs?
Most recently, the U.S. Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (CDC) backflipped on “the science,” stating that “COVID-19 prevention recommendations no longer differentiate based on a person’s vaccination status because breakthrough infections occur.”
It now advocates for taking personal responsibility and for everyone to decide for themselves “which prevention behaviours to use and when (at all times or at specific times), based on their own risk for severe illness and that of members of their household, their risk tolerance, and setting-specific factors.”
Breaching Medical Free Speech in Queensland
Unfortunately, Australia is set to follow California down the path of state-sanctioned trashing of the doctor-patient relationship.Amendments to a bill (Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009) have been put before the Queensland Parliament, due to be debated and passed into law this month.
The proposed amendments, which appear to have broader implications beyond advice about COVID-19, have angered medical groups like the Australian Medical Network (AMN), representing over 10,000 health professionals and private citizens.
“Doctors will no longer be able to express their opinion or use their experience, training, and education if their opinion goes against what the health bureaucrats say is in the interests of ‘public confidence in safety.’ Doctors will be bound to follow government policy, which means that government health bureaucrats will determine how doctors should approach treatment recommendations for their patients.”
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as a “textbook” patient. Everyone is different, based on his or her own individual conditions and circumstances.
This is why treatments have been, until recently, “recommended.” What treatment may work for one person may not necessarily work for another.
That is the beauty of the doctor-patient relationship: where a doctor, in the privacy of his or her own office, can determine, based on his or her own training, experience and knowledge of the patient, built up through a relationship of mutual trust over many years, what will work best for that patient. This may mean not following the “recommendations.”
For how many years did doctors decide—against the advice of regulators—that medical cannabis would be a worthwhile pain relief treatment option for their patients?
The deleterious effects of state-sanctioned medical tyranny have been laid bare over the best part of three years, where those challenging the narrative were cancelled and labelled dangerous, only for them to be vindicated later on.
Accordingly, the state has no place putting its ugly tentacles into the doctor-patient relationship, and its attempts to do so must be fiercely resisted by doctors and patients alike.
If the CDC advocates that we should all take “personal responsibility,” to do anything else would be “misinformation.”
Right?
