AMA VICDOC Autumn 2024 - Magazine - Page 99
PA RT N E R — K EN N E DYS
November 2019 the Australian Health
I nPractitioner
Regulation Agency (Ahpra)
issued guidelines titled ‘Social media:
How to meet your obligations under the
National Law’ (Social Media Guidelines).
The Social Media Guidelines identify that
health practitioners must comply with
professional obligations as defined in
the Board’s Code of Conduct, maintain
professional boundaries and communicate
professionally and respectfully with
patients, colleagues and employers.1
The Social Media Guidelines further
note that inappropriate use of social
media can result in harm to patients
and the profession.
Use of social media in one’s private life
can become a relevant consideration for
the Medical Board of Australia (the Board)
in assessing the practitioner’s fitness to
hold registration, even if the online profile
has no identifiable link to the person as a
registered health practitioner.2
In Ellis v Medical Board of Australia
(Review and Regulation) (Ellis), Dr Ellis
faced immediate action from the Board to
suspend his registration for social media
commentary made containing misleading
medical statements, statements that could
be offensive to the LGBTQI community and
to the religion of Islam, as well as antiabortion sentiments. The Victorian Civil
and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) was
critical of Dr Ellis’ inappropriate use of
social media to air his personal views on
medical and social issues.
VCAT said that a registered health
practitioner’s comments in social media
reflecting or promoting personal views
about social and medical issues may
impact on someone’s sense of cultural
safety or could lead to a patient or
client feeling judged, intimidated
or embarrassed.3
VCAT focused on Dr Ellis’ comments on
medical issues that had no proper clinical
basis and ultimately decided that he posed
a serious risk to persons. VCAT upheld
the Board’s decision to take immediate
action by suspending Dr Ellis’ registration
to protect public health or safety, despite
Dr Ellis having ceased using social media.
VCAT considered that even though the
risk that Dr Ellis would use social media
inappropriately again would be relatively
low, his online conduct was considered to
pose a serious risk to persons in the way
Dr Ellis would practise medicine.
In Fidge v Medical Board of Australia
(Review and Regulation), VCAT held that a
Facebook post made by Dr Fidge voicing
anti-vaccination views was directly in the
course of Dr Fidge’s clinical practice and
hence a relevant consideration for the
Board.5 VCAT stressed that Dr Fidge was
identified as the principal of a medical
practice on the Facebook page and the
post referred to Dr Fidge’s expertise as
a medical practitioner. VCAT considered
that Dr Fidge was clear in his motivation
to engage individuals who were vaccine
hesitant in his capacity as a medical
practitioner, and such conduct falls within
the meaning of professional conduct
within the scope of Section 178 (1)(a) of the
National Law.6 Dr Fidge was cautioned to
ensure he takes care to avoid conveying
a message that can be construed by the
public as contrary to established public
health programs when commenting
or posting on social media where his
professional status can be identified.
VI CD O C AUTU M N 2024
99
