MCNZ: Double Standards or No Standards?

If not for double standards would there be any standards at all?

We have continually marvelled at the hypocrisy of the NZ government throughout the “Covid Error”.

Perhaps the greatest hypocrisy has been promulgated by the NZ health care regulatory authorities who repeatedly manifested the elitist notion that they created the rules, but were by no means subject to them.

At NZDSOS, we are most familiar with the flagrant, wanton, and unrelenting hypocrisy of the Medical Council of New Zealand. We will allow our readers to judge whether this regulatory authority lives up to its own standards. The following designated excerpts are from the MCNZ website.

What we do:

“At the Medical Council of New Zealand, our role is to protect the public and promote good medical practice”.

We suspect that their definition of “public” includes “the state” rather than living men, women and children in New Zealand (i.e. the MCNZ exists to protect the government, not you).

We also suspect, based on behaviour directed against us, and stated in various court records, that “good medical practice” is defined as being in the commercial interests of the NZ government.

Many of us ran “afoul” of the Medical Council for informing our patients of the potential risks
(known and unknown) of the Covid-19 mRNA inoculation (“the jabs”). This would have been in
keeping with the published standards related to informed consent below (again, directly from the MCNZ website).

Standards: Informed Consent:

“Patients are entitled to information about their health and the care they are receiving.
This statement outlines what we expect of doctors when helping patients to make an informed decision about their care and treatment.”

Key points about informed consent:

• The patient has the right to make an informed choice about their care and, in most instances, must give
• permission to proceed with treatment.
• That permission is called informed consent. It is an interactive process between the doctor, the patient
• and sometimes those close to the patient, such as their family or whānau.
• As the doctor, it is your responsibility to ensure informed consent is obtained, and to communicate and
• Work with your patient to help them make the best decision for themselves (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights 1996). The doctor undertaking the treatment is responsible for the overall informed consent process. The patient has the right to refuse treatment and withdraw consent. All patients are presumed competent to give informed consent unless established otherwise.

What is informed consent?

Every time treatment is provided, a doctor must have permission to provide that treatment. The process of obtaining that permission is called ‘informed consent’.

Without informed consent, the treatment may be unlawful. To help the patient decide whether they want a treatment, they first need to be given information, such as the risks and benefits of their treatment options.

In this statement, we use the words ‘treat’ and ‘treatment’ to refer not just to one-off or specific clinical encounters and procedures, but also to ongoing care

How you can help your patient make informed decisions:

• Provide the information needed.
• You must give your patient the information they need to help them make a fully-informed decision.
• Share information that is relevant to them, in a way they understand, and allow reasonable time for the patient to make their decision. Think about whether there is anything else you can do to make it easier​​​​​​​ for your patient to consider the different options and make a fully informed decision. Cover the options available including those that you may not be able to provide yourself.
• Be open and honest with your patient, and answer their questions accurately.
• Provide information to your patient, such as an explanation of their condition, the options available, and the results of tests and procedures. (See Right 6 of the Code which lists several things to tell yourpatient.”

Hmmm. Our NZDSOS doctors made every effort to inform our patients of the potential risks of
treatment with the covid-19 jabs, and yet we were singled out for punishment, defamed, deregistered, and deprived of our careers.

We were censured by the Medical Council because we did not recognise that the side-bar “advice” (Guidance Statement 28 Apr 2021) from then Chair, Dr Curtis Walker (which actually contradicted medical ethics and MCNZ “standards”) was to be given the effect of law that would be applied to us for the commercial interests of the NZ government.

This is particularly interesting (and disturbing) when we consider the specific standards of the Medical Council regarding vaccines and immunisations as stated below:

“When a patient is enrolled in an immunisation or screening programme you have a special duty of care when enrolling patients into immunisation or screening programmes.”

This includes making the person aware of any limitations of a screening programme and the
uncertainties, in particular the chance of false positive and false negative results.

Before obtaining consent you should explain, or give information to the patient that explains:
a. the purpose of the screening or immunisation
b. the risks and uncertainties
c. any significant medical, social or financial implications for immunising against, or screening for that condition, and any follow-up provided, such as counselling and support services.”

Hmmm.

Does the reader see any inconsistencies between what the MCNZ says and what they have actually done the last 5 years? Doth they protest too much against our doctors for sounding the alarm and persecuting our members to this day (despite the rest of the world validating our concerns and restoring those “mandated” out of their jobs to full employment)? 

Our members had actually agreed with (and complied with) the Medical Council standards. This hypocrisy is not going well for the government. According to an AUT poll, only 32% of New Zealanders trust the “state sponsored” news media.

Eighty four percent of New Zealanders are concerned that they will not be able to access health care when they need it, according to Stuff this week. The MCNZ and the NZ government have responded to the physician shortage (that they caused) by “fast-tracking” doctors from 3rd world countries who are unlikely to challenge the government narrative.

The government says that “we should all just move on”. But what does the Medical Council say in their standards?

We are instructed that, as doctors, when something goes wrong with the medical treatment (whose risk we have ostensibly informed our patients of) we should endeavour to disclose fully what happened, in an effort to facilitate trust and maintain transparency.

The specific recommendations from the MCNZ website are below:

“Disclosure of harm refers to instances where a patient has been adversely affected as a direct result of medical care. Open disclosure in this situation promotes transparency, can strengthen the doctor-patient relationship and is important for the health and safety of the public in general.

This statement is intended to help doctors understand the purpose of open disclosure and why it matters to patients and their family/whānau. It also guides doctors on factors to consider when a situation requires that the harm is disclosed”.

So…We are to “do as they say and not as they do”. That’s nice. Perhaps when the government actually stops with their double standards, stops denying their wrongdoing, stops persecuting good doctors, and fully discloses (and takes responsibility for) the harm that they have caused from their Covid-19 public health response, we may consider trusting them again. 

Until then, we shall consider them an enemy to the living men, women, and children of this nation and their physical, mental, and spiritual health. Perhaps, some day, the government can adopt its own Medical Council Standards for informed consent and actually advocate for the health of real people instead of its own commercial interests.