I have recently read a highly disturbing article (Controlled by confidence: the unchecked power of AHPRA and the state | The Spectator Australia) outlining the impact of regulation from the state over the decisions and actions of medical practitioners. Advances in medicine and science generally have ebbed and flowed with periods of growth and advance interspersed with episodes of failure. Generally, medical failure has ultimately been recognised and the correct pathway established. It is widely accepted and acknowledged that the medical profession itself has well-established protocols to debate diKering points of view and research is often utilised to establish or stop certain treatments or courses of action. Groupthink is definitely not an asset and an enquiring mind able to look at information from differing viewpoints is a definite asset. Put simply “the science” is not and never will be “settled.”
During my career I have seen multiple examples of this. One of the more notable from an Australian perspective is the Perth doctors who questioned the science around gastric ulcers proving against the regulatory opinion that they were caused by Helicobacter which could be treated with antibiotics. I understand in their office they are photographed with a Nobel prize for medicine adjacent to a regulatory requirement that they cease their research.
In my own field as an early adoptor in laparoscopic surgery it was widely considered that laparotomy or open surgery was superior to laparoscopy. Most of my older colleagues attempted to sway me from utilising these techniques. Similarly in general surgery, in the early days the rate of injury to the duct from the gallbladder was higher in those undergoing an open procedure and heated discussion was seen around the world in relation to the preferred technique of access for gallbladder removal. Now almost all gynaecological and abdominal surgical procedures are performed via laparoscopic or recently robotic surgery. Virtually no gallbladders are removed via open surgery.
I believe regulatory over-reach has become a problem particularly since the COVID pandemic. Inquiring minds took different views as to appropriate measures to take, alternative therapeutic options and the side effects of the injections. The regulatory body have banned many of these voices which have now ultimately turned out to be correct.
It is dangerous for the health of citizens when regulatory bodies dictate management protocols and do not allow dissenting opinions.