OIA response: Medsafe Has No Duty Of Care To New Zealand Public

A call for accountability.

Sparked by the recent class action law suit in Australia led by the heroic Dr Melissa McCann, in which the TGA attempted to get the case dismissed before it started by claiming it has no duty of care to the Australian public, our team asked our New Zealand regulator Medsafe if they have a duty of care.

A duty of care can be defined as: “A legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.”

“The responsibility of a person or organisation to take all reasonable measures necessary to prevent activities that could result in harm to other individuals and/or their property.”

This week we received a response under the Official Information Act (OIA) leaving us stunned, yet not surprised. The Ministry of Health’s reply regarding Medsafe was clear:

This is an astounding statement, especially when you consider the responsibility medical professionals and regulators have when it comes to public health.

The moment you intervene in someone’s health—whether by offering advice or regulating medical treatments—there is an implicit obligation to ensure that the care provided is safe, effective, and accountable.

The MCNZ refers to a duty of care: “Strive to use resources efficiently, consistent with good evidence based patient care, and balance your duty of care to each patient with your duty of care to the community and wider population.” (So doctors do have a duty to the wider population, eh? Interesting, for those doctors punished for speaking out…)

The NZ Nurses Organisation also refers to a duty of care: “Legally, all people owe a duty of care to people who could foreseeably be harmed by their actions or inactions.”

So the fact of a duty of care goes without saying then for health care staff. But the true “burden” of responsibility goes much much deeper than this for doctors, and perhaps only older ones still appreciate this.

Little wonder our agencies-associated-with-health can’t or won’t meet these standards, but you would think medicine’s history of at least some practitioners taking a proverbial bullet for their patients might rub off on the humans who comprise these regulatory bodies. 

This is not just about making purchasing decisions; it’s about protecting human lives.

Yet we have seen our government and its agencies treat the New Zealand public like disposable products.

For those in the health and regulatory sectors, the stakes are even higher. People who are vulnerable or unwell rely on these professionals to ensure their safety.

However, this response from Medsafe suggests those in charge of public health in New Zealand, senior managers and politicians alike, are not obliged to uphold any moral duty or responsibility for the consequences of their decisions on affected health consumers.

Perhaps it was unfair to expect Medsafe, in a dry OIA reponse, to have waxed lyrical about them being a caring organisation – of course – with altruistic staff defending the public against rapacious corporates and interfering politicians. 

But, Medsafe (as well as MoH, MBIE, NZPolice, Crown Law etc etc)  should know that it is bound by the principle of legality, which says all government bodies MUST see all their actions though the lens of the Bill of Rights Act (BORA), which has been affirmed repeatedly by the highest courts. 

It took a big hit during covid with the mandates, but BORA still controls the behaviour of government towards the people. 

Even more foundational is the Nuremburg Code which is considered settled international law, beholding NZ and whatever wiley officials might say. So Medsafe et al need to uphold our rights – to life, to medical freedom, to full disclosure; in short, to care for us, over and above their political masters or corporate patrons

Maybe the person answering the OIA request, along with the rest of Wellington, need some basic grounding in their responsibilities under the law. However, we hear they have returned from summer to be schooled instead on tighter control over sensitive communications. 

Just the wrong people at the wrong time, or a lawless systemic callousness?

How can they reconcile claims of testing safety and efficacy, and hiding documents,  with the admission that they have no formal duty of care? 

This apparent contradiction raises serious concerns about the integrity of our public health system. It seems that individuals entrusted with the responsibility for the health of the nation may not be held to the standards necessary to protect people’s well-being.

For those in charge of public health to have no enshrined duty of care to the public is deeply troubling. It raises an uncomfortable question: are New Zealanders merely rats in a cage of a larger experiment, with no guarantee of protection, all for the benefit off ‘big pharma’ and the obsequious cohort of agencies bowing to the World Health Organisation?

It is time for transparency, accountability, and a serious examination of the role our health regulators play in safeguarding public health.

The New Zealand public deserves better than this.