Doctors who criticise vaccines or lockdown policies on social media could face being struck off if regulators rule they are guilty of spreading ‘fake news’, according to new guidance from the GMC. The Telegraph has the story.
The core guidance for medics has been updated for the first time in almost a decade to cover media such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. The rules on use of social media include a duty to be “honest” and “not to mislead”, as well as to avoid abuse or bullying.
The draft regulations from the General Medical Council (GMC) – which the watchdog describes as a 21st-century version of the Hippocratic Oath – also say doctors must speak out if they encounter “toxic” workplace cultures that threaten patient safety. And they say medics must take action if they encounter workplace bullying, harassment or discrimination.
The watchdog regulates doctors, who can face a range of sanctions – including being struck off the medical register – if they are found to have failed in their duties.
Charlie Massey, the Chief Executive of the GMC, said… the fundamental principles of the guidance remained the same, but had been updated to reflect the modern world.
“We’ve had feedback that doctors want more clarity on using social media. We are already clear that doctors must be honest and trustworthy in their communications, and are now emphasising that this applies to all forms of communication. The principles remain the same whether the communication is written, spoken or via social media,” he said.
The use of social media by medics has become an increasingly vexed issue during the pandemic, the report adds.
In December a judge ruled that the GMC’s interim orders tribunal had made an “error of law” when it ordered a GP accused of spreading misinformation to stop discussing Covid on social media.
Dr. Samuel White, who was a partner at a practice in Hampshire, raised concerns about vaccines and claimed “masks do nothing” in a video posted last June.
The GMC’s Interim Orders Tribunal imposed restrictions on Dr. White’s registration as a result. But the High Court said this decision was “wrong” under human rights law.
He had claimed “lies” around the NHS and Government approach to the pandemic were “so vast” that he could no longer “stomach or tolerate” them.
In August, the tribunal concluded Dr. White’s way of sharing his views “may have a real impact on patient safety”. It found Dr. White allegedly shared information to a “wide and possibly uninformed audience” and did not give an opportunity for “a holistic consideration of COVID-19, its implications and possible treatments”.
But the GP’s barrister, Francis Hoar, argued the restrictions imposed on his client’s registration were a “severe imposition” on his freedom of expression.
The draft guidance says doctors can be held accountable for promoting misleading information or stepping outside areas of their expertise. They are told to “be honest and trustworthy … make clear the limits of your knowledge.. [and to] make reasonable checks to make sure any information you give is not misleading.
“This applies to all forms of written, spoken and digital communication,” the draft guidance states. And doctors are warned that online rows and trolling could jeopardise their professional futures.
It is of course outrageous that medics should be at risk of losing their career for questioning on Twitter the Government line on its draconian public health interventions. If there’s one thing we were lacking during the pandemic it was not an excess of conformity amongst doctors. The right of medics to ‘informed dissent’ should be strengthened, as per the High Court ruling in favour of Dr. White, not weakened.
On the other hand, there are plenty of Government advisers I can think of who could do with being penalised for “stepping outside areas of their expertise”. Somehow I doubt anything similar will ever be applied to them, however.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The GMC guidance is still the subject of a public consultation – and anyone can contribute. Click here to begin the process.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Brilliant article, and great analogy about the hot air balloon.
Which reminds me of a thought which crossed my mind a while back, after happening upon this column by Freeland in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/17/political-imagination-end-lockdown-mass-testing-contact-tracing
…in which he used the quite inappropriate (though superficially plausible) analogy of the public being a family hiding in a cabin whilst a wild bear prowled outside, and needing to make a decision on when it was safe to come out (ie. when the bear had gone away).
For starters, I found this troubling because if the bear just stayed outside indefinitely the family would eventually starve.
But the point is, the analogy was wrong. Under lockdown, we are not sitting in a cabin which is safe and stable for the foreseeable future. Instead we are taking huge risks with the entire functioning of society.
The better analogy which then crossed my mind was we are all in a submarine. The virus was some unknown fault which sounded an alarm in the engine room. Under those circumstances it might be sensible to temporarily shut down the engines whilst the fault was investigated.
However what has happened with lockdown is the engines have just been left switched off and the powers that be are saying “let’s stay here until we can be perfectly sure they are safe to start up again. After all, we are all still breathing and everything is perfectly comfortable, isn’t it?”
Whilst all the time the ship sinks nearer to the bottom, the hull pressure increases and the remaining air decreases. We can only hope someone shouts the order to surface before the entire ship implodes.
Yes, the “bear” scenario really annoys me. Most people – apparently including almost all politicians and other “decision makers” – have no idea at all what viruses are, how small they are, or how ubiquitous they are.
The world is thought to contain about 10 to the power 33 viruses – more than stars in the universe, more than grains of sand in the world. Much of our human DNA consists of old viral genes from invaders that burst in, were assimilated, and joined the host genome. (Karin Moelling, a leading virologist, states that the human immune system was created by viruses trying to defend the cells they had conquered from other viruses).
Every human body is full of viruses, bacteria, fungi, archaea, amoebae and other microorganisms – a total of 2-3 kilos for an average adult. Only about 10% of our cells are human; the other 90% belong to our tiny symbiotes.
Thus, as Moelling explains, our immune system is not so much “at war” with viruses as “playing ping pong with them”. Health consists of keeping the balance between all the myriad elements of the human body.
To say that someone has “been infected” with Covid-19 is misleading. I am sure we all have a few billion of the little buggers somewhere in our bodies. It’s only when the number of billions ramps up sharply that we start to feel off-colour – and only then that tests can detect the virus. (Both the PCR and the antibody tests are extremely unreliable, giving both false positives and false negatives – not least because trying to confine a virus or keep it out is like, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “shovelling flies across a room”).
The virus does not really exist, in active form, anywhere except in human cells. It may lie around dormant on surfaces for a while, but eventually it degrades. And it probably gets into the body only through the nose, mouth and eyes. It gets the upper hand whenever the body is weakened – the immune system is inadequate, or there is some powerful stress. (Such as being locked down). Both stress and immune deficiency can be caused by a bad diet, such as Western governments have been recommending for the past 50 years, by vitamin and mineral deficiencies, and by lack of sunlight and fresh air (the best disinfectants).
So locking yourself in your house until the virus “goes away” is as ludicrous as the frantic attempts of a horror film victim to barricade the doors and windows – only to find the monster is already in the house. As Pogo said, “we have met the enemy and it is us”.
The virus will never go away. The best we can hope for is that, in time, almost everyone’s immune system will have encountered it and created sufficient defences to hold the balance – to maintain the ping-pong rally indefinitely. That is how human beings have been coping with viruses for the few million years humans have existed, and there is nothing else. Clever drugs and vaccines do no more than clumsily try to provoke the immune system into premature action – which may not end well even when it appears to succeed.
This is brilliant. This is what I have been trying to explain, but Tom Welsh has it well and truly nailed. Thank you!
What i find strange in this analogy you mention is what Roy Aitken, former Celtic FC and Scotland defender / midfielder would be doing outside a cabin terrorising a family.
I agree with the analysis. I think there is also a compounding problem of the “safe space” culture that has been propogated in the last 30 years. The BBC and the Guardian are guilty here but so is most of the rest of the press and now our politicians have succumbed. The Andrew Marr interview with Michael Gove last week is a prime example. The idea one can negate all risk is absurd. Gove rightly asserted one cannot avoid all risk but it is unfortunately a brave politician in this time of panic who actually speaks sense. And it pains me to write this as someone on the left who feels his world is crumbling before his eyes both figuratively, legally and economically.
“A courageous decision, Minister…”
Hmm, this psychological aspect is perhaps even scarier than the state to which governments have brought their economies. We have finally been allowed to go on the beach, but I keep wondering if we are actually about to go ‘On The Beach’ (a la Neville Shute).
That book has been on my mind a lot over the past few weeks.
Don’t think it’s just individuals, institutions are finding it hard as well. A week after the lockdown was eased here all the park car parks are still locked up, I think the local authorities are finding it easier not having to deal with the public
But how will they manage without the income? Not to mention deferring two months of council tax…
They won’t understand that bit until it’s much too late (and then they’ll blame the government anyway).
Taxpayers are no longer needed. We print money now.
Brilliant.
(When there’s a Guy article to read, I always pause, set myself up with a coffee, and then settle down for a real treat).
Hear, hear! It’s quite unusual to find opinion that is so well written, well argued, and well researched.
I think you mean E.M. Forster, not C.S.
Please don’t get the little things wrong, because it’ll give the malicious the chance to claim that all the big things are wrong too.
Excellent piece. I have another analogy – that blissful moment when road runner is off the cliff and in mid air, still running. Or the whale in Douglas Adam’s story becoming conscious for a few seconds as it plummets to earth. This situation is as darkly comical and as tragic.
A common theme in the comments of this website is the notion is that people enjoy being on forlough as furlough is a dream situation is that you are paid not to work. They get only get 80% of their wage but this is compensated by no travel costs.
The lockdown is going to have a major economic impact and one cause is large sections of the population not working even if this is only temporary. Let’s say a company is unable to operate during the lockdown and the workers are all off. If no one is working, things like toilet paper, soap, stationary etc are not needed which will have a knock on effect on suppliers. There is a convenience store near the company which receives a lot of trade from the workers eg buying coffee for breaks, newspapers. The convenience store looses this trade when the workers are not there. A fair number of workers travel by bus and bus companies loose this trade when the workers are away. Many of the workers are worried if they will have jobs to go back to and are reluctant to spend money.
When my younger son was at collège, as the French say, he went through a bad patch. I’ve never been able to find out precisely what happened, but I think his so-called friends stopped speaking to him. One evening he even cried. Then he learned to cope. He hung about with a new boy, observed the others, joined in the conversation when he could, was gradually re-accepted by the group. The whole experience was unpleasant, but made him more resilient. It occurred to me that if covid19 had happened when he was thirteen he would have liked nothing better than to be allowed – forced – to stay at home where his family was nice to him and he didn’t have to meet these nasty friends. He would probably have dreaded going back to school. His character would have developed in a different way. It is not good to be too safe at an impressionable age.
Tom Welsh is spot on. The worst thing to do for one’s health is to stay at home, out of the sun. This is especially so at mid to high lattigudes. The lunatic advice to stay at home, enforced by police state behaviour, has taken the last remaining elements of self-sufficiency from most people. I am also seeing a nastiness develop in formerly decent people who gave been in isolated lockdown. Having no face to face contact with colleagues for a few months is causing personality shifts towards dictatorial and repressive behaviour, or maybe exacerbating these traits.
Reminds me of
Klaatu, Everybody Took a Holiday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_O0ltzBlLs
Great article. But I keep asking the reasons for many of the measures in the emergency act and how was it drafted and agreed so smoothly and quickly. I’ve used https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/coronavirus-act
as a decent summary and believe that the sections on death certification, post mortems and inquests and the removal of liability for indemnity from health services probably make the primary statistics of death wholly suspect. Most of the Act has a shelf life of two years, but not this last section. Our health services may be exempt from liability for some time.
One question remains. I’ve heard talk of health workers being subject to the Official Secrets Act. Is this true and where are the references?
We are being scammed.