This is an application brought by the Medical Council seeking an interim suspension of the Respondent’s registration from the Register of Medical Practitioners pursuant to s.60 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.

The Respondent is a general practitioner.  On the 16th of September 2020, the Medical Council received a complaint from one of the Respondent’s patients. The complaint related to a consultation the patient had earlier that same day with the Respondent.  The patient was informed by the Receptionist that the Respondent could not refer patients for Covid-19 testing because the surgery did not have a computerised system to facilitate such referrals. When the patient attended the surgery, he noticed a photocopied pamphlet with the title “No pandemic killing us”. The patient then claimed he was treated to a barrage of nonsense about the “hoax that is Covid-19'” and that “the state and the government are scamming the people”. Furthermore, the Respondent was said to have advised the Complainant that the wearing of masks was causing illness.

The CEO and the Medical Council invited the Respondent to provide undertakings and he signalled that he would undertake to cooperate with the HSE regarding the vaccination of patients and would undertake to refer Covid concerned patients to other general practitioners and not to share his personal views of Covid-19 with his patients. However, the Council was of the view that the proposed undertakings did not sufficiently protect the public and the Respondent’s patients.

The Court noted the importance of when the court is asked to make an order under s.60, that the court seeks to balance the right of the public to be protected from a medical practitioner who poses a risk to their care and welfare against the right of the medical practitioner to continue his or her practice until such time as an adverse finding may or may not be made against them.

The Medical Council submitted it’s concerns to the court, relying upon the fact that the Respondent does not operate his practice so as to comply with public health measures. No masks are worn by the Respondent or his staff and the wearing of masks by patients is not encouraged or enforced. No physical distancing measures are in place and the Respondent continues to operate walk-in appointments contrary to public health advice. The Medical Council was also concerned regarding the Respondent’s failure to refer patients for Covid-19 testing who show relevant symptoms.

The Court held that in circumstances where it is admitted that the Respondent has failed to refer any patient for Covid-19 testing since the commencement of the pandemic and that he does not operate his practice in compliance with public health measures, the case against him when considered by the Council was of sufficient strength to justify the s.60 application. Therefore, the court was satisfied that the allegations made against the Respondent may well be considered to amount to a serious breach of professional conduct and that the evidence against the Respondent should indeed be categorised as strong.

The Court held that any adverse consequences that flow from the suspension of the Respondent are outweighed by the risks that his conduct poses to the patients and those with whom they live if permitted to continue with his practice. The Respondent’s conduct exposes his patients to the very real risk of infection when attending his surgery.

Accordingly, the court was satisfied that the Council was justified in bringing an application pursuant to s.60 of the 2007 Act. https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/0e49e750-0b74-4015-9f35-e4d3d1f0d93a/2021_IEHC_252.pdf/pdf#view=fitH