The key issue
The key issue in this case was whether there was a reasonable basis for the Board to take immediate action in relation to social media commentary.
The background
The case relates to the appeal of a decision by the Immediate Action Committee of the Board to suspend a GP (the applicant) after he made a number of controversial “Medical Statements” and “Social Statements” on social media between August 2017 and April 2020.
There was a total of 56 posts which were the subject of the immediate action decision, which contained information and opinions about vaccines, chemotherapy, COVID-19 and certain religious and other groups.
The applicant conceded that his language was sometimes “excessive”, “exclamatory” or “explosive”.
The Tribunal noted that there were thousands of people who had accessed the social media commentary, some of whom knew it was from a medical practitioner. The Tribunal was further concerned that members of the public may include vulnerable persons who lacked the qualifications necessary to evaluate the applicant’s statements properly and that COVID-19 had increased the risk that people act on advice from unreliable sources.
The Tribunal considered the risk to be that the applicant’s past use of social media suggests that the way he practises medicine may be without proper clinical basis or contrary to accepted medical practice.
The outcome
The Tribunal found that the Board’s decision to suspend was correct and dismissed the appeal.
Implications
The case illustrates that practitioners need to be vigilant about their use of social media and the publication of any opinions they may hold through those mediums, particularly during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Practitioners should familiarise themselves with the Board’s Social Media Guidelines.
The decision Ellis -v- Medical Board of Australia (Review and Regulation) [2020] VCAT 862 can be read here.
