An Ottawa surgeon has been ordered to take a remedial course on ethics and boundaries after sharing with several patients his controversial opinions about the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.
The complaints panel heard evidence Matyas cast doubt on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, promoted the use of ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, and suggested that surgical masks were ineffective at preventing the disease’s transmission.
Matyas appealed that decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, arguing the college had no authority to investigate and punish him for expressing scientific opinions that challenged the “official narrative” on COVID-19.
According to the review board decision in the case, the college received complaints about Matyas from two patients, including a Carleton University microbiology professor. The professor, an infectious disease specialist, said Matyas spread “unsolicited propaganda” about COVID-19 vaccines during an appointment in September 2021 and described them as a useless, money-making venture for pharmaceutical companies.
Why a “remedial course on ethics and boundaries”? That’s just patronizing. Sure, fine the guy, suspend him, or even fire him. But why pretend that he’s simply ignorant of what the policy is when that’s clearly not the case? (I suppose being patronized is humiliating, which is a sort of punishment, but not one that makes the institution doing the punishing look very good.)
Canada has a bad shortage of doctors at the moment. It was probably a judgement call, whether firing him would make things worse.
Narrator: It would not make things worse
A bad doctor is worse than no doctor.
A good surgeon who is a bad GP is in fact, better than no surgeon.
I mean if he’s bad across the board, sure. What if they’re great at everything else, but just happens to off kilter here? Dangerous gamble to be sure, and does speak to a fundamental issue with their reasoning.
Easy to say that when you have plenty of doctors.