An Australian doctor who was suspended for saying COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous has won a lawsuit against local medical regulators and regained his registration.
Dr. William Bay, a GP registrar in Brisbane, has been embroiled in a legal battle with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the Medical Board of Australia (the Board) after his registration was suspended in 2022.
Prior to his suspension, the GP had spoken out against COVID-19 vaccines on multiple occasions, both online and in public.
He warned people about the risks of the vaccines to their health.
Dr. Bay made the headlines when he interrupted a national Australian Medical Association conference in July 2022.
Contradicting Regulators’ View on COVID-19 Vaccines
Dr. Bay’s view contradicted APRHA’s stance that vaccination is a crucial part of the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic and that registered health practitioners must educate the public about the importance and safety of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure high participation rates.
“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action,” APRHA and the Boards said in 2021.
The GP’s action resulted in five complaints and notifications made against him, several of which were submitted to the Office of the Health Ombudsman.
During an online meeting in early August 2022, the Board and AHPRA raised the issue that Dr. Bay posed a serious risk to persons, and that it was necessary to immediately suspend his registration to protect public health or safety.
The medical regulators later went on with the proposal and officially suspended the doctor on Aug. 17, 2022.
In November 2022, Dr. Bay filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of Queensland, asking the Court to review the AHPRA’s and the Board’s decision.
The Ruling
On Dec. 13, the Supreme Court of Queensland delivered a decision (pdf) that ruled the suspension of Dr. Bay’s registration invalid.Justice Thomas Bradley found that the notifications and complaints that the AHPRA and the Board based on to make the suspension decision were about Dr. Bay’s conduct in political settings and were not related to his clinical practice.
“None made any allegation that Dr. Bay had or was providing any clinical services that failed to meet the applicable professional standards,” he wrote.
“None could be properly characterised as a “mandatory notification” under the National Law (Qld), despite some being submitted and accepted by the Board as such.”
The judge also pointed out that the legal representatives of the Board and AHPRA were unable to identify any basis for the Board’s assumption that Dr. Bay had violated relevant legislation with his conduct.
“Nothing in the first three notifications before the Board alleged or justified this conclusion,” he wrote.
“This very serious allegation by the Board appears to have been entirely unfounded.”
While Bradley acknowledged that the Board and AHPRA made the suspension decision in the context of “an extraordinary period of history,” he rejected their arguments that the medical regulators were acting diligently with a genuine belief that the suspension was necessary to protect the public.
At the same time, the judge found that both the Board and AHPRA were biased and did not provide Dr. Bay with a fair procedure as he went through the suspension process.
“During this extraordinary period of history, various measures were implemented by Australian Parliaments and their delegates, and various powers were exercised by executive government,” he wrote.
“None of these measures authorised the Board to abrogate the right of persons, such as Dr. Bay, to a hearing before an apparently unbiased tribunal.
“None authorised the Board to deny him procedural fairness. None extended the Board’s regulatory role to include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.”
Apart from revoking the suspension, the Court ordered the Board and AHPRA to pay for Dr. Bay’s legal costs.
An Exceptionally Fair Decision: Dr. Bay
Dr. Bay welcomed the ruling and praised the Court for its fair decision.“I think Justice Bradley delivered an exceptionally fair and just decision to bring accountability to a government agency that has for too long gotten away with acting without any regard to the law … [the purpose of which] was to protect the health and safety of the public,” he told The Epoch Times.
“Clearly, they have failed at achieving that purpose by viewing free speech from clinicians as harmful when it is, in fact, protective for patients and the public.”
In addition, the GP said the ruling sent a message to Australian medical practitioners that their views about COVID-19 vaccines would not make them liable for any breaches of the Code of Conduct and that the court could help defend them if the medical regulators inappropriately tried to undermine free speech and clinical autonomy.
While Dr. Bay can get back his registration, he said it was unlikely that he could resume his previous medical career as he had been expelled from the GP training program due to the suspension.
“I am looking forward to participating in further structural reform of the medical regulator to bring further accountability and justice to an abusive and intimidating system for most health practitioners,” he said.
“I’m also looking forward to resuming my clinical practice in a telehealth or another online role.”
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for AHPRA and the Board told The Epoch Times that the medical regulators acknowledged the court’s decision and would examine it in detail before considering any further course of action.
