An Ontario physician who’s been critical on social media of the pandemic’s management, and cautioned by her professional college for doing so, pleaded her case in front of a review board on Oct. 12, saying her advocacy was part of upholding her oath.
“For the past two years, my voice hasn’t been heard and ulterior motives have been applied to my intentions, which have always been sincere,” Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill told the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).
“I hope that this board will look at the evidence that was before the committee and in an unbiased and ethical manner understand that, throughout all of this, I have only tried to uphold my oath.”
Gill’s case was before the board as she attempted to overturn cautions ordered against her by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
Gill was the subject of complaints regarding her comments on Twitter that were critical of pandemic management, such as the imposition of lockdowns or the dismissal of early treatment alternatives.
The doctor argued in 2020 that lockdowns would bring a significant social toll and impact children and the marginalized the most, and that mass vaccination should not be a prerequisite to lift stay-at-home orders.
The lawyer representing Gill, Lisa Bildy, told the review board that the complaints are not related to an adverse event from a medical treatment or to the abuse of a patient, with Gill having never received such a patient complaint.
“It’s only because she has shared scientific studies and opinions on her social media account which go against the COVID narrative preferred by these complainants that she’s before this board today,” said Bildy.
‘Coordinated Campaign’
With the bulk of the complaints against Gill being made within a few days in August 2020, Bildy said this appeared to be part of a “coordinated campaign” by other physicians and members of the public.Most of the complaints filed against Gill were dismissed by the CPSO, after it determined that what Gill was advancing was backed by scientific studies and did not represent “misinformation” as claimed by the complainants.
One contentious issue was Gill promoting the drug Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment against COVID-19, which the CPSO ruled didn’t constitute “misinformation.”
However, the CPSO retained three complaints and issued related cautions against Gill, which can impact her ability to practice in jurisdictions outside Ontario.
In its decisions, the CPSO wrote that Gill showed a “lack of professionalism” and failed to “exercise caution in her posts on social media, which is irresponsible behaviour for a member of the profession and presents a possible risk to public health.”
One of the complaints came from a member of the public, Mark Brown, who said that Gill had made comments on Twitter that were opposed to messages coming from health authorities.
The other retained complaint came from another member of the public, Maria Hauschel, who expressed concerns about “false” and “misleading” information promoted by Gill.
Lawyer Bildy told the hearing this complaint was mostly focused on the same tweets by Gill mentioned in other complaints, “Although this complainant also suggested the doctor Gill’s tweets were dangerous and a violation of her oath to do no harm.”
Bildy remarked that since Gill had received a caution for the same previous tweets, she had received separate caution orders for identical comments.
Thomas Kelly, who sits on the review board and heard the case, said there would be separate decisions made at a later time related to the seven complaints.
He said the board would review how the CPSO processed the complaints and evaluate the reasonableness of its decisions.
An application for judicial review of one of the three CPSO cautions, which followed a Registrar’s investigation and dealt with the same tweets, has been initiated, hence the board won’t review or rule on that one.
