Tasmania goes to early polls on March 23. The centre-right Liberal Party has selected Dr. Julie Sladden, a registered general practitioner and emergency medicine doctor since 1997, to contest the northern electorate of Bass.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) wants her deselected.
Dr. Sladden closed her practice in 2021 because of strong objections to the COVID-19 vaccine.
When the COVID vaccines arrived on the scene, she calculated her COVID infection survival rate was 99 percent.
Early data showed comparable transmission rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, but also some worrying safety signals with no long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or fertility studies.
She concluded that for her, “the risks did not outweigh the benefits, especially if it meant I could still infect my patients.”
Her efforts to communicate her concerns to Tasmanian politicians mostly fell on deaf ears. That is when, as far as the health establishment is concerned, she became an “anti-vaxxer.”
She has penned many thoughtful, informative, and well-written articles since then.
Science
There is a legitimate debate to be had on the efficacy and effectiveness of COVID vaccines in preventing/reducing infection and transmission, on the age-disaggregated harms-benefits equation, and on the science and ethics underpinning mandates, as opposed to recommendations and guidance.This worldwide ongoing debate is being conducted by well-qualified and highly credentialed people.
Dr. Barratt believes “COVID vaccines have saved lives and continue to do so.” This remains the prevailing opinion in the medical establishment.
These alliances were needed because critics of COVID-19 interventions felt the full force of stifling intellectual conformity. Regulators threatened dissenting doctors with professional disciplinary action.
Although the threat was carried out in only a few instances, the modest numbers do not invalidate the tactic.
Freedom
On the medical freedom side, that which is beyond question is not science but dogma.Science is a work in progress, not an encyclopaedia of facts. The long arc of science bends towards truth, but progress is neither linear nor irreversible.
Scientists have a responsibility to subject the existing consensus to searching scrutiny in line with empirical observations. They must have the corresponding right to challenge the prevailing dominant narratives.
Diversity viewpoints on contested elements of knowledge, and rejection of attempts to suppress dissenting voices, provide necessary guardrails against reverses of knowledge.
On the political freedom side, it’s extraordinary that anyone should seek to deny a duly selected candidate, of any political party, the opportunity to contest an election. Pre-selection is a matter solely for the party concerned. Voting is a matter for the citizens of Tasmania.
Who appointed the AMA as the custodians of Australian democracy?
Did Australia’s COVID-19 policy interventions represent the greatest triumph of public policy, with an unprecedented high number of lives saved as a result of timely, decisive, and appropriate measures instituted by governments acting on the science- and evidence-based advice of experts? Or will they prove to be the biggest public policy disaster of all time?
The 2020–22/23 years were among the most disruptive in many countries, including Australia. The herd panic of early 2020 led to an abandonment of good process, an abandonment of carefully prepared pandemic preparedness plans, and a centralisation of decision-making in a narrow circle of heads of government, ministers, and health bureaucrats and experts.
The rules and regulations made on the run represented a hysterical mix of ignorance, incompetence, and/or malfeasance. The damaging health, mental health, social, educational, and economic consequences will continue to impact public life well into the future.
Core Principles
The doctor-patient relationship in Western societies has long been governed by four important principles: the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship; first, do no harm or at least, avoid doing more harm than good; informed consent; and prioritising the health outcomes of the patient over that of any collective group.All four principles were gravely compromised with COVID.
Colleges and bureaucrats operating at a remote distance are not better placed than the doctor to assess the best interests of the patient.
The AMA should have been at the forefront of vigorously defending the sacrosanct principles that have delivered Australians among the best health outcomes in the world.
Instead, Dr. Barratt and the AMA are betraying authoritarian instincts in seeking to remove Dr. Sladden as a duly pre-selected candidate.
Little wonder that some doctors express concern the AMA has morphed from a union representing doctors into a bureaucratic institution run by careerists. Often, in my opinion, they seem more interested in attacking other doctors than representing the best interests of the diverse group.
They are free to challenge Dr. Sladden to a debate and argue their case for mandatory vaccines.
The criticism of Dr. Sladden is a bad development for the health of Australian democracy.
In fact, it is the AMA that owes the people of Tasmania an apology for this unwarranted intrusion into the electoral process.
