COVID-19 Denialism, Vaccine Scepticism and the Regulation of Health Practitioners.

J Law Med

Barrister, Castan Chambers, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Judge, Supreme Court of Nauru; Professorial Fellow of Law and Psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Adjunct Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University; Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.

Published: March 2021

During a pandemic such as COVID-19 fear, anxiety and paranoia can become prevalent within the community. Agnotology has taught us that in such times science denialism and vaccination scepticism can gain a foothold and discourage the undiscerning and the uninformed from receiving the treatment and prophylactic public health measures that are essential to community health and safety. When health practitioners endorse such attitudes they pose a serious risk to not only their patients but the whole community. This requires a robust response from health practitioner regulators, disciplinary tribunals and courts. This column identifies such a sensible and proportionate response from the Irish High Court in Medical Council v Waters [2021] IEHC 252 when a general practitioner's registration to practise was suspended for promoting such views. The decision, along with a comparable decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2020 constitute potent international examples of a robust and commonsense regulatory endorsement of science during a time of public health crisis.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

health practitioners
8
public health
8
health
6
covid-19 denialism
4
denialism vaccine
4
vaccine scepticism
4
scepticism regulation
4
regulation health
4
practitioners pandemic
4
pandemic covid-19
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!