Surgeon reprimanded for sharing dissenting COVID views with patients

Ottawa doctor cast doubt on vaccine efficacy

An Ottawa surgeon has been ordered to take a remedial course on ethics and boundaries after sharing with several patients his controversial opinions about the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

Dr. Miklos Matyas, a head and neck surgeon, recently lost his appeal of the order issued by the complaints committee of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Matyas argued the case cut to the heart of free speech rights for doctors with dissenting medical views.

The complaints panel heard evidence Matyas cast doubt on the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, promoted the use of ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug, and suggested that surgical masks were ineffective at preventing the disease’s transmission.

The committee ordered Matyas to appear before the panel for a verbal caution about his communication with patients and colleagues.

A date for that appearance has yet to be set.

“The committee was concerned about the potential impact of the respondent’s (Matyas’) conduct on patient safety and the public interest,” the panel said in its February 2023 decision. “In the committee’s view, his statements were contrary to the information and directives provided by the public health agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Matyas appealed that decision to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, arguing the college had no authority to investigate and punish him for expressing scientific opinions that challenged the “official narrative” on COVID-19.

If the committee does have that power, he said, it should disclose who authored the official narrative and declare which scientific opinions cannot be questioned.

“Protection of the public is made possible by protecting physicians’ autonomy and free expression of their honest professional opinions and interpretations of scientific data,” Matyas argued, adding:

“Promoting censorship of dissenting expert clinicians in a rapidly evolving public health crisis is not in the public’s interest.”

Any suggestion he offered inappropriate COVID-19 information, Matyas told the review board, rested on the belief that public health officials were always right.

Matyas’ arguments, however, were rejected earlier this month by the review board, which said the college was legally required to investigate patient complaints and to act when a physician’s conduct was unprofessional.

In its decision, the review board said that, while physicians had a Charter-protected right to free speech, it was reasonably circumscribed because they held a unique position of public trust. Due to that status, the board said, doctors must ensure that the “scientific claims made to patients are based on verifiable, available evidence.”

“The committee’s conclusion is grounded on public health information in the record, including from the National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.”

The board upheld the committee’s order that Matyas enrol in a remedial ethics course.

Matyas did not return email and phone messages seeking comment.