CPSA Portal will be unavailable from Dec. 13 – 15 due to a scheduled outage. Please complete your annual renewal and/or access documents and other applications outside of these dates. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Back to All News & Events

Medical Matters: Balancing freedom of expression and professional responsibilities

Back to Messenger
Medical Matters, November Messenger 2024 | Posted November 14, 2024
Read time: 3 minutes

By Dr. Scott McLeod, CPSA Registrar & CEO and Dr. Jaelene Mannerfeldt, CPSA Council Chair

Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of media coverage on the future of health care in Alberta as of late and one such topic that has been heavily debated is freedom of expression as it relates to regulated professionals. While we can’t speak for all health professionals, we thought it was important to share CPSA’s perspective as draft legislation is debated.

There seems to be an impression that we at CPSA have a desire to limit physicians’ freedom of speech. The reality is that we support physician’s freedom of speech, and we encourage physicians to express their opinions and share their thoughts. As physicians we are taught the value of advocacy early in our careers. In fact, “medical advocate” is a core competency outlined in the CanMEDS framework for the competencies needed for medical education and practice.

So why then is there a perception that the regulator is intent on limiting physicians’ freedom of speech? We can’t guess what others may be thinking; however, the most obvious would be related to recent cases where complaints have been made against physicians who spoke out during the pandemic. Whether that was related to comments about public health protocols or treatment options for COVID-19, there were a handful of physicians that had complaints submitted against them based on comments they made.

It’s important to note that as a regulator, we are obligated by law to address each complaint that comes forward. Our job is to collect the evidence and determine if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the physician failed to meet a Standard of Practice or the Code of Ethics and Professionalism.

Since this is November and we have just passed Remembrance Day, it is important to recognize that Canada is a country that enjoys significant freedoms that many countries around the world don’t have. However, the reality is that freedom is not free. Many thousands of Canadians have given their lives for the freedoms we enjoy today and therefore we all have a responsibility to maintain our freedoms. That is why Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms has limitations in it.

Physicians hold a position of trust in society and that trust must be maintained to ensure all physicians can practise effectively. That is why the Code of Ethics and Professionalism advises physicians to “provide opinions consistent with the current and widely accepted views of the profession when interpreting scientific information to the public; clearly indicate when you present an opinion that is contrary to the accepted views of the profession.”

Note that the Code does not actually limit a physician from providing an opposing position, rather it states that you must clearly state your opinion is in opposition to the consensus of others. This is important because new ideas must be shared. The whole principle of the scientific method is to come up with new theories. However, the scientific method is not about public debate of the theories. The second and most important part of the scientific method is the research required to safely assess those theories. Randomly trying treatments on sick patients is inappropriate experimentation that can put people in harms way.

One other key statement from the Code of Ethics and Professionalism that’s important to reflect on is “A humble physician acknowledges and is cautious not to overstep the limits of their knowledge and skills or the limits of medicine, seeks advice and support from colleagues in challenging circumstances, and recognizes the patient’s knowledge of their own circumstances.”

It is impossible for a physician to have expertise in all areas of medicine. That is why an undergraduate MD degree is followed by specialty training. Physicians are expected to practise medicine within their area of expertise. Making public comments about specialties we are not qualified to practise is dangerous. This leads to confusion for Albertans at times when they look to medical professionals for their expertise. A cardiologist making comments about the prevention and treatment of heart disease is what we should expect, but that same cardiologist should likely not be making comments about the value of joint replacement surgery.

Just as we continuously review our Standards of Practice, with input from our regulated members, health care partners, government, and Albertans, to ensure CPSA is providing reasonable and up-to-date expectations, reviewing legislation can be a good thing. For example, we do see our complaints process used inappropriately at times, such as complaints made against physicians who are expressing their opinions that fall outside clinical responsibilities. As mentioned above, we still have an obligation to address the complaint under current legislation. Having some freedom to automatically dismiss some complaints could help CPSA in the work we do.

For that reason, we look forward to finding language that strikes the right balance of allowing physicians the freedom to express their opinions with their responsibilities as a professional to protect the public. Finding the correct balance will be tricky and it will take considerable consultation prior to any final legislation.

As we mentioned, this has been a highly debated topic as of late and we think it’s important to share and hear others’ perspectives—including yours. Regulated members, please keep an eye on your inbox in the coming days for a chance to share more feedback on this topic.

We have also included some recent opinion pieces below to offer a broader perspective on this topic.

 

10 Responses

  1. Brad William Martin says:

    I agree completely with the current Code of Ethics and professionalism. As a physician, I may consider recommending a course of treatment to a patient that runs contrary to the weight of medical evidence. However, if I choose to do so, I must provide the patient with appropriate information to allow then to make an informed decision regarding this treatment. I must clearly state that my recommendation runs contrary to the accepted views of the profession.

    • Dr. Scott McLeod & Dr. Jaelene Mannerfeldt, CPSA says:

      Thank you for reading, we appreciate the thoughtful approach you take to ensuing the care you provide your patients aligns with the standards we all must follow as physicians.

  2. Sid Pandya says:

    It would be normal to have a hypothesis and using a scientific method to test that null hypothesis. Our CPSA must uphold basic science. Those that are fringe benefactors that support a radical idea such as “anti vaccine ” thought processes must be called out and some physician supporting such a trend likely should face investigation and a reprimand. Sadly such anti vaccine decisions have had in past and in future massive impacts on health care providers in a publicly funded system. Governments by nature may never do what is right as politics is more important to governments. In such situations the CPSA should also call out the misrepresentations at hand which should include the government. The populist regime in US is about to test these limits as well. Who shall speak for science?

    • Dr. Scott McLeod & Dr. Jaelene Mannerfeldt, CPSA says:

      Thank you for reading and sharing your perspective. It’s important for the public to trust that their health professionals are basing their care and recommendations on the latest scientific evidence.

  3. Theresa Helmle says:

    The College of Physicians and Surgeons insults the intelligence of the average citizen by over-reaching and silencing doctors on topics that are still evolving.

    A physician should never be silenced, particularly in respect to a new and novel condition, as there is much to be learned from opposing views and then and only then, are individuals are able to make their decisions with respect to treatments, etc based on INFORMED consent.

    By silencing doctors, you are in fact, ensuring that INFORMED consent is not attainable.

    • Dr. Scott McLeod & Dr. Jaelene Mannerfeldt, CPSA says:

      Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. CPSA has no interest in silencing members, advocacy is an important part of medical practice but it must be balanced with our profession’s responsibility to maintain trust with the public. We completely agree that it’s important to hear differing perspectives from our own, but when sharing opinions publicly that are contrary to the currently accepted views of the profession, it’s equally important to disclose this so patients are well-informed.

  4. Monica Werner says:

    Wow! This was very well written! The balanced approach presented in this article is both impressive and inspiring. A very refreshing read, thank you for your thoughtful words.

  5. Ernst Snyman says:

    In your second paragraph you indicated the CPSA support freedom of speach. Wy are there then added threatening points raised in your letter at the same time

    • Dr. Scott McLeod & Dr. Jaelene Mannerfeldt, CPSA says:

      Thank you for reading. Our intention was not to be threatening, but to remind the profession of the responsibility we all have to balance our freedom of speech with our obligation to provide patients with safe, evidence-based advice and care.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *