Surgeon punished for COVID views
Head and neck specialist ordered to take ethics course by college
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.
Public health officials in Canada have been criticized for being slow to concede the SARS-COV-2 virus was airborne and for initially discouraging the use of masks among healthy members of the public.
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 board finds the committee’s conclusion to be reasonable on the inappropriateness of the applicant’s comments about COVID -19 vaccines and treatment,” the review panel wrote.
“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 and appear before the panel to be cautioned.
Matyas did not return email and phone messages seeking comment on this story.
In October 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Matyas had his hospital privileges at CHEO and the Queensway Carleton Hospital temporarily suspended because of his failure to comply with their policies.
Queensway Carleton and CHEO said Matyas did not currently hold privileges at that hospital.
According to the review board decision in the case, the college received complaints about Matyas from two patients, including a Carleton University microbiology professor. The professor, an infectious disease specialist, said Matyas spread “unsolicited propaganda” about COVID-19 vaccines during an appointment in September 2021 and described them as a useless, money-making venture for pharmaceutical companies.
The professor said Matyas strongly advocated for the use of ivermectin and directed him to the web page of the Front Line COVID -19 Critical Care Alliance, a group of physicians championing ivermectin.
A drug used in humans to treat infections caused by parasitic worms and head lice, ivermectin has been touted as a COVID-19 treatment despite repeated warnings by the FDA that there is no evidence to support its use against the respiratory disease.
Matyas told the college he engaged the university professor in a discussion about emerging COVID -19 data because he was a man of science. He denied “pushing” the professor to acquire ivermectin.
“He likely experienced cognitive dissonance when I presented him with some of the up-to-date data on the pandemic and COVID-19 management,” Matyas wrote. “Cognitive dissonance can result when people hold a core belief that is very strong … The respondent (patient) is likely a very strong believer in the COVID vaccines being the only possible saviour of humanity in this pandemic.”
Matyas took exception to the professor’s suggestion that he was spreading misinformation: “Everything I quoted to him are published facts and I encourage him to develop a little scientific curiously and humility about what he thinks he knows in the field of medical science.”
A second complaint was made about Matyas following a female patient’s visit to his office in July 2022. According to the woman, once she donned a mask to leave the office, Matyas reminded her that the mask mandate had been lifted and that surgical masks didn’t stop transmission of COVID-19.
Matyas described the complaint as a “malicious accusation” and said he was simply trying to help the woman use masks appropriately.
The college considered the two complaints together with information from the two hospitals where Matyas’ privileges had been suspended.