7.5.9 Medical Practice and Ethics During COVID-19

Introduction

Once the COVID-19 pandemic was announced in March of 2020, the medical profession unilaterally changed and/or abandoned the fundamental tenets under which medicine is practised in Canada and in most parts of the world.

The relationship between a medical practitioner and their patient is a unique and sacred one. The patient trusts the medical professional to provide the patient with the best quality of care available and to deliver those services with a high level of skill and professionalism.

The patient must trust that the medical practitioner is providing them with the latest unbiased information, based on current independent scientific evidence. There can be no allowance for blurring of science with political propaganda when it comes to this information.

The very nature of this relationship is that the patient is reliant on the medical professional to provide them with facts and the unbiased information required, explained in a way that the patient can understand, which then permits a patient to decide what care is most appropriate to them. As each patient is unique, the medical professional must take into account the patient‘s actual situation and level of understanding when presenting information.

The process of a medical practitioner providing a patient with accurate, non-biased information and assuring that the patient understands that information while at the same time is making their own personal decisions concerning their healthcare is often referred to as “Informed Consent.“

Often the information that a patient exchanges with their medical provider is profoundly personal, and there has always been a strict policy of absolute privacy been a patient and their medical practitioner.

The absolute requirement for privacy of the patient–doctor exchange is necessary as the patient must feel confident to share the most intimate details of their life with the medical practitioner. If the patient does not have this guarantee of privacy, they may not properly explain the details of their condition to the medical practitioner or may not seek professional assistance at all due to their embarrassment.

This doctrine is often referred to as “Patient–Doc–or Confidentiality.“

The Commission heard testimony from both patients and medical practitioners concerning the widespread violation of each of these two fundamental doctrines of medicine, which occurred in all regions of Canada throughout the pandemic.

Healthcare providers in Canada have a legal duty to provide a certain standard of skill and care to their patients. This is normally referred to as “Duty of Care.“

This Duty of Care is usually considered to comprised of duties including

• attending,

• diagnosing,

• referring,

• treating, and

• instructing the patient.

If a healthcare provider breaches that Duty of Care and a patient suffers an injury as a result of that breach, then the healthcare provider may be guilty of negligence.

These principles, and many others, are not simply guidelines but are legally enforceable under law. The laws which apply and are enforceable in Canada include Canadian, Provincial, and Territorial law, and International Laws and Treaties to which Canada is a signatory.

Testimony Concerning Medical Practice and Ethics During COVID-19

Witnesses who testified concerning medial practice and ethics during COVID-19 included a range of different perspectives, including

• patients,

• doctors,

• nurses,

• paramedics,

• administrators, and

• instructors.

In general, the testimony described a medical system that has completely abandoned the basic tenets of medicine and has violated the laws and regulations which govern the ethical practice of medicine across Canada.

The practice of medicine is regulated within each province and territory by regulatory bodies, which are empowered under certain provincial and territorial legislation.

These regulatory bodies are in place to regulate most healthcare professionals in Canada. This includes doctors, nurses, paramedics, pharmacists, and many more.

Informed Consent

Each province has their own specific regulations, but most are similar to each other.

As an example, below is a link to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, from Ontario.

Excerpts from the Ontario Health Care Consent Act include the following provisions:

No treatment without consent

10 (1) A health practitioner who proposes a treatment for a person shall not administer the treatment, and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it is not administered, unless,

(a) he or she is of the opinion that the person is capable with respect to the treatment, and the person has given consent; or

(b) he or she is of the opinion that the person is incapable with respect to the treatment, and the person‘s substitute decision-maker has given consent on the person‘s behalf in accordance with this Act.  1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 10 (1).

Elements of consent

11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

1. The consent must relate to the treatment.

2. The consent must be informed.

3. The consent must be given voluntarily.

4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (1).

Informed consent

(2) A consent to treatment is informed if, before giving it,

(a) the person received the information about the matters set out in subsection (3) that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment; and

(b) the person received responses to his or her requests for additional information about those matters. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (2).

Same

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2) are:

1. The nature of the treatment.

2. The expected benefits of the treatment.

3. The material risks of the treatment.

4. The material side effects of the treatment.

5. Alternative courses of action.

6. The likely consequences of not having the treatment. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11 (3).

Withdrawal of consent

14 A consent that has been given by or on behalf of the person for whom the treatment was proposed may be withdrawn at any time,

(a) by the person, if the person is capable with respect to the treatment at the time of the withdrawal;

(b) by the person‘s substitute decision-maker, if the person is incapable with respect to the treatment at the time of the withdrawal. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 14.

Continuing the example of the above Ontario regulations, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO), who are charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine in Ontario, provide additional information and guidance to physicians related to Informed Consent.

Under the “What We Do“ section of the CPSO website it states:

What we do:

Registration—Physicians are required to be members of the College to practise medicine in Ontario. The College‘s 

Registration Department handles all inquiries regarding the registration process.

Quality—CPSO has a legislated mandate to ensure quality care is provided by physicians. Our Quality Control Program is a proactive needs-based approach, which will contribute to improved quality of care, patient safety and will result in significant benefits to patients, providers and ultimately the healthcare system itself.

Investigations & Discipline—A central responsibility of CPSO is to respond to concerns and investigate complaints from members of the public about doctors in Ontario. If necessary, cases are referred to the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons 

Discipline Tribunal.

Guiding Professional Conduct—Develop policies to provide guidance to physicians about legislative/regulatory requirements and the expectations of the medical profession.

Under the the section of the website titled “Policies,“ CPSO has the following policy:

Consent to Treatment

General Expectations

1. Physicians must be aware of, and comply with, all of the requirements in the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA).

2. Physicians must obtain valid consent before a treatment is provided.

3. Patients and substitute decision-makers (SDMs) have the legal right to refuse, withhold, or withdraw consent to a treatment, and physicians must respect this decision even if they do not agree with it.

4. Physicians are advised to consider and address language and/or communication issues that may impede a patient‘s ability to give valid consent.

• Physicians must use their professional judgment to determine whether it is appropriate to use family members as interpreters, and are advised to take the potential limitations of doing so into account in the specific circumstances (for example, the family dynamics, the seriousness of the condition and/or treatment, etc.).

1. Physicians are advised to obtain independent legal advice if they are unsure of their legal obligations in specific circumstances. The obligation to ensure that valid consent is obtained always rests with the physician proposing the treatment.

Obtaining Consent

1. For consent to be valid, physicians must ensure that it:

• Is obtained from the patient, if they are capable with respect to treatment, or from the patient‘s SDM, if the patient is incapable with respect to treatment.

• Relates to the specific treatment being proposed.

• Is informed.

• Is given voluntarily and not under duress.

  • If physicians believe that consent is not being freely given, they must ensure that there has been no coercion.

  • Is not obtained through misrepresentation or fraud.

    • Physicians must be frank and honest when interacting with patients, including when conveying information about the proposed treatment.

1. To ensure that consent is informed, physicians must:

• provide information about the nature of the treatment, its expected benefits, its material risks and material side effects, alternative courses of action and the likely consequences of not having the treatment prior to obtaining consent, which includes:

  • providing information that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would require in order to make a decision about the treatment;

  • considering the specific circumstances of the patient, on a case-by-case basis, and using their clinical judgment in determining what information to provide; and

  • providing information relating to material risks that are relevant for a broad range of patients and those that are particularly relevant for the specific patient;

  • engage in a dialogue with the patient or the SDM (as the case may be) about the information specified in 7.a., regardless of whether physicians use supporting documents (such as consent forms, patient education materials or pamphlets) to facilitate the provision of this information;

  • provide a response to requests for additional information about the treatment; and

  • be satisfied that the information provided is understood and, as such, take reasonable steps to facilitate the comprehension of the information provided.

Testimony was received indicating that the principle of Informed Consent was violated through force and / or coercion of patients into taking the vaccine and by the absence of sufficient truthful information concerning the unique and experimental nature of the mRNA vaccines.

Based on witness evidence, widespread information that was being published and presented to clients concerning the potential adverse effect of the vaccines was not accurate and not complete.

Several witnesses testified that they were given little or no information concerning the risks associated with taking the COVID-19 genetic vaccines, prior to taking it.

Witness testimony indicated that the blanket statement of “safe and effective“ was constantly used and that they were never informed about the potential risks of the vaccine, the experimental nature of the vaccine, or that the vaccines were approved under an Interim Order which exempted the manufacturers from satisfying the normal requirements for vaccine safety testing.

Pregnant women were not informed that the COVID-19 genetic vaccines had not been expressly tested on pregnant women and that no long-term testing had been carried out to determine if there was any risk to the unborn child or to breastfeeding mothers.

People were not informed that the vaccine carried a risk of death as a potential and reported side effect.

People were not informed that their risk of dying from the disease was directly linked to their age and the existence of any comorbidities.

Dr. Francis Christian provided a document “Consent for COVID-19 genetic vaccine for Children.” The document is from Saskatchewan Health. The document states the following:

It is recommended that parents/guardians discuss consent for immunization with their children. Efforts are first made to get parental/guardian consent for immunizations. However, children 13 years and older who are able to understand the benefits and possible reactions for each vaccine and the risks of not getting immunized, can legally consent to receive or refuse immunizations in Saskatchewan by providing mature minor Informed Consent to a healthcare provider.

This statement is an attack on parental rights. It essentially states that if the parent, or guardian, does not agree to the medical procedure that the healthcare provider can ignore the parental directive as long as the child is over 13 years of age.

What child, at the age of 13, can understand the nuances of the information being provided by the government concerning the potential risk that COVID-19 posed to children versus the risk of death or other significant reported side effects of taking the experimental vaccine?

Dr. Francis Christian testified concerning what he felt was the minimum information that should have been given to children to accommodate the requirements of Informed Consent. Following is a list of these minimum requirements, based on information available since June 2021:

• The risk of your child dying of COVID is almost zero.

• The vaccine has a new gene technology that has never been used clinically before.

• The vaccine was approved using “emergency use“ or “interim use“ authorization. It is experimental. Its medium- and long-term adverse effects are unknown.

• To qualify for emergency use authorization, there must be an emergency—there is no emergency in healthy children.

• Children are of no danger to adults.

• There are thousands of deaths associated with the vaccine (VAERS and other reports).

• Myocarditis is a serious condition and can be caused by the vaccine. Its real incidence is unknown—1/5,000 to 1/250. Myocarditis can be fatal. Many other serious vaccine adverse events are happening.

• The risk of the vaccine for your healthy child is likely more than the risk of COVID.

This minimum information was not given to parents concerning vaccination of their children.

The Ontario college of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) on their website, under the heading of COVID-19 FAQ‘S for Physicians, Pandemic-Related Practice Issues, Update March 23, 2022, stated, the following about what a physician should do when facing a patient who did not want to get the COVID-19 genetic vaccine:

It is also important that physicians work with their patients to manage anxieties related to the vaccine and not enable avoidance behaviour. In cases of serious concern, responsible use of prescription medications and/or referral to psychotherapy are available options. Overall, physicians have a responsibility to allow their patients to be properly informed about vaccines and not have those anxieties empowered by an exemption.

There are a number of issues within this CPSO statement that are problematic when it comes to the requirement for obtaining “Informed Consent.“

First, the CPSO refers to people who choose not to take the vaccine as needing to manage their anxieties, and they are calling the decision to not take the vaccine as “avoidance behaviour.“ This type of language can only serve to stigmatize the patient and undermine what is supposed to be a free and uncoerced decision about a medical procedure.

Secondly, they are inferring that the decision to not take the COVID-19 vaccine is a mental illness which the physician should consider treating with prescription medications of psychotherapy.

These statements by the CPSO are chilling, to say the least. They are in direct contravention of the Ontario Health Care Consent Act which states the following:

11 (1) The following are the elements required for consent to treatment:

1. The consent must relate to the treatment.

2. The consent must be informed.

3. The consent must be given voluntarily.

4. The consent must not be obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A, s. 11(1).

The use of prescription medications and subjecting a patient to psychotherapy in order to convince the patient to change their mind can hardly be considered “voluntary consent.“

Under CPSO‘s own website within the section “Policies,“ concerning Informed Consent, CPSO states the following:

1. Patients and substitute decision-makers (SDMs) have the legal right to refuse, withhold, or withdraw consent to a treatment, and physicians must respect this decision even if they do not agree with it.

How does suggesting that physicians treat the legitimate concerns and decision of a patient as an anxiety condition, which can be treated with prescription drugs and psychotherapy, respect the patients‘ choice?

Patients were threatened with loss of employment, social isolation, stigmatization, or other non-specified threats if they did not comply with the vaccine mandates. These threats were pervasive, as previously discussed. Media actively promoted hate and even violence against people who would not get vaccines.

Prime Minister Trudeau called people “racists” and “misogynists” and suggested that the government would have to decide what to do with them—remarks that reasonable people might find threatening.

In many instances, governments couched the information concerning COVID-19 vaccinations in language that stated the vaccines were safe and effective as demonstrated by decades of experience with safe and effective vaccinations. These statements hid the fact that mRNA injections were not like any traditional vaccination that had been used prior to this time.

According to Dr. Peter McCullough, these mRNA vaccines should rightly have been dealt with using the regulations related to biologic drugs, and it was, in his opinion, medical malfeasance to have approved them under the protocols used for vaccines.

It also hid the fact that based on the Interim Order under which the COVID-19 genetic vaccines had been approved, the manufacturers were not required to prove that the vaccines were safe and effective.

Further, the government did not carry out a risk–benefit analysis of the vaccines since they did not have enough information to do so.

The vaccines had not been approved based on proven scientific evidence, they were approved on the basis of a political agenda.

The public could not have given the required Informed Consent since they were under threat and coercion and were never provided with enough truthful and adequate information to form consent.

The media and government officials inflamed the situation and created an atmosphere of terror and hate which permeated every aspect of Canadian society; this further caused patients to be unable to form a reasoned decision concerning this novel medical gene therapy.

Patient–Doctor Confidentiality

Testimony was provided by a variety of witnesses indicating that their confidential medical records were reviewed by third parties without their consent or that they were required to disclose private medical information to third parties under the mandated policies.

Witnesses, including patients and physicians, described how the principal of medical confidentiality was violated.

In general terms, the testimony described the following instances:

Citizens were required, by government mandate, to disclose personal information about their medical history, including disclosure of the results of genetic testing and the disclosure of information concerning certain medical procedures.

These disclosures were required to be made to third parties, including both medical and non-medical personal. Non-medical personnel to whom personal medical information was mandated to be disclosed to included

• restaurant staff.

• store clerks,

• school staff,

• church volunteers, and

• bus drivers.

Disclosure was required by just about anyone, without any consideration of privacy or qualification. This was required for persons to participate in the most basic and fundamental activities within our society.

How did the government protect the confidentiality of this information?

What actions did the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Canada take to advise their members and safeguard the public against these non-confidential disclosures?

People were required to disclose their vaccination status and the status of any genetic testing that they underwent concerning COVID-19. This is contrary to the Canadian Genetic Non-Discrimination Act which states the following:

https://www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-2.5/page-1.html#h-247317

Genetic test

3 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of

• (a) providing goods or services to that individual;

• (b) entering into or continuing a contract or agreement with that individual; or

• (c) offering or continuing specific terms or conditions in a contract or agreement with that individual.

Refusal to undergo genetic test
(2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to undergo a genetic test.

Disclosure of results

4 (1) It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to disclose the results of a genetic test as a condition of engaging in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c).

Refusal to disclose results
(2) It is prohibited for any person to refuse to engage in an activity described in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (c) in respect of an individual on the grounds that the individual has refused to disclose the results of a genetic test.

The Act defines a genetic test as the following:

genetic test means a test that analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes such as the prediction of disease or vertical transmission risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis. (test génétique)

Physicians and surgeons described how a third party, an unknown staff member from the government or public health department, would directly contact a patient and provide advice that often contradicted the advice given by the physician to the patient.

This public health staff member did not have previous contact with the patient nor had they been consulted by the patient or the doctor; however, they were countermanding the physician‘s advice to that patient.

Dr. Gregory Chan testified that he had submitted 56 Adverse Reaction Reports to Alberta Health Services. He testified that half of the 56 reports were never acknowledged. Of the remaining 28 reports of adverse reactions, Alberta Health Services told Dr. Chan that for 16 of these 28 Adverse Reaction Reports that the patient should receive a second injection of the COVID-19 genetic vaccine. This advice from Alberta Health Services was provided to Dr. Chan without anyone from Alberta Health Services actually seeing the patient in question.

Dr. Chan specifically spoke about a young man who was a professional level hockey player who was told to get the COVID-19 injections, despite having recovered from a previous COVID-19 infection. Within 24 to 48 hours of receiving the COVID-19 genetic vaccine injection, the young man was unconscious and taken to the hospital due to cardiac issues. Alberta Health Services advised the young man to get a second injection of the vaccine, without having examined the young man or consulting with the physician treating him.

Dr. Chan described two other instances, one concerning a nurse and the other concerning a police officer, in which Dr. Chan felt the symptoms were caused by the vaccine; however, the Alberta Health Services advised that these patients should receive a second dose of the vaccine.

In Dr. Chan‘s opinion, staff from Alberta Health Services were providing patient diagnosis and recommendations without ever having seen the patient.

Dr. Francis Christian stated, during his testimony, that the medical profession allowed a third party to insert itself between the patient and the physician through algorithmic guidelines. Most guidelines were developed from industry-funded physician groups, which, in essence, violates the sanctity of the patient–physician relationship. The guidelines soon became enforceable restrictions by the regulatory bodies, so physicians no longer had an option to treat their patients based on their own diagnosis.

Dr. Patrick Phillips testified that he had reported 10 Adverse Event Reports to the public health system after having examined each of the 10 patients. Public health rejected 9 of the 10 reports without actually having examined any of the patients, and Dr. Phillips was not given any specific criteria for those rejections. After having examined a patient, based on that examination, Dr. Phillips prescribed a course of ivermectin and vitamins for a treatment of that particular patient. A pharmacist reported that prescription, and the hospital ordered that the diagnosis and prescription be rescinded without any consultation. Dr. Phillips was later suspended by the regulatory body.

Dr. Chris Milburn, in his testimony, indicated that the College of Physicians and Surgeons had stated that it was a physician‘s duty to follow their policies despite the actual evidence and examination of a particular patient by that physician. Thus, the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons had inserted itself between the physician and patient, dictating care protocols.

Duty of Care

Healthcare providers have a special duty of care to their patients because of the imbalance of knowledge that exists between a patient and the healthcare provider. Access to, and understanding of, complex medical information favours the healthcare provider, and healthcare providers know that their patients are reliant on the knowledge of the healthcare provider.

Healthcare providers must take into account that patients are vulnerable to their opinions. The patient relies on the understanding that the healthcare provider will put the needs of the patient first and that any services provided to the patient will be based on a factual and individual assessment of the patient‘s unique situation.

According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario:

Physicians should be skilled clinicians committed to the values of the profession.

Physicians should be committed to lifelong learning and be responsible for maintaining the medical knowledge and clinical skills necessary to provide the highest possible quality of care to patients.

At all times physicians should:

• be aware of deficiencies in knowledge or ability;

• obtain help when needed; and

• ensure that their practice matches their level of competence.

In terms of individual patient care, physicians should provide medical care based on objective evidence whenever possible. This includes demonstrating a sense of inquiry and taking a scientific approach to solving clinical issues for the benefit of the patient.

Physicians have a duty to seek out new evidence and knowledge, to share this knowledge with others and to apply it in practice.

Physicians are expected to keep abreast of current developments in their field, which includes maintaining an awareness of relevant practice guidelines and implementing them as appropriate. All research must be initiated and pursued in an ethical manner.

Many of the witnesses testified how the regulatory bodies were dictating what a healthcare provider could say, diagnose, report, and prescribe. These mandates further severely restricted the healthcare provider from offering patients exemptions to the political pandemic mandates, based on the unique circumstances of the particular patient.

Healthcare providers were discouraged from carrying out any research into the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and restricted from, or in some cases prevented from, undertaking any research that might have challenged the politically dictated mandates and narratives.

By blindly following these mandates without due regard to the evolving information available on populations at risk and different alternative treatment options, healthcare providers failed to uphold the requirement under their responsibility of Duty of Care.

Healthcare providers have a duty to carry out their own research to confirm the claims being made by a particular manufacturer or purveyor of information concerning patient treatments; they are not entitled to blindly believe the literature provided to them by industry representatives.

In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare providers and their regulators made no apparent attempts at evaluating the information that was being provided to them by their political leaders and industry representatives.

They blindly imposed these prescriptions upon their membership and the membership followed the instruction in lockstep.

Few healthcare providers challenged the political narrative, and those that did faced severe consequences including revocation of their licence to practise medicine.

Witnesses who testified concerning Medical Practice During COVID-19:

Gail Davidson

A lawyer, she reviewed Canada‘s obligations under international human rights law.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Natasha Gonek

She presented her findings on regulatory failures.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Maurice Gatien

A lawyer, he discussed his defence of the vaccine-injured.
(Ottawa: May 18, 2023)

Dr. Keren Epstein-Gilboa

A developmental psychologist, she described the impact of COVID measures on children.
(Ottawa: May 18, 2023)

Allison Petton

A registered nurse, she discussed informed consent to a medical procedure.
(Truro: March 17, 2023)

Dr. Edward Leyton

A physician, he reviewed the influence of medical institutions and the use of ivermectin.
(Ottawa: May 18, 2023)

Dr. Chris Shoemaker

A physician, he discussed the dangers of the COVID vaccine.
(Ottawa: May 19, 2023)

Dr. Misha Susoeff

A dentist, he discussed third party and Informed Consent.
(Red Deer: April, 28)

Melanie Alexander

She revealed the story of her husband‘s medical mistreatment during COVID.
(Ottawa: May 19, 2023)

Dr. Daniel Nagase

A physician, he discussed the unjust treatment of patients and doctors during COVID.
(Ottawa: May 19, 2023)

Samantha Monaghan

She described the loss of her son after a blood transfusion.
(Ottawa: May 18, 2023)

M Tisir Otahbachi

He shared his story of vaccine injury and his mistreatment by the healthcare system.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Adam Zimpel
A severely disabled man, he described his social isolation due to COVID measures.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Mallory Flank

A former paramedic, she reported on her vaccine injury.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Kristen Nagle

A nurse, she was defamed for speaking out about COVID measures.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Sheila Lewis

She described her heartbreaking story of being removed from the transplant list.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Dr. Stephen Malthouse

A physician, he described how he challenged COVID policies.
(Ottawa: May 17, 2023)

Camille Mitchell
A pharmacist, she described the impact of COVID mandates.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Shawn Mulldoon

He talked about his experience with severe vaccine injury.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Paul Hollyoak

A coast guard rescue specialist, he reported on his vaccine injury.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Ted Kuntz

He reviewed the lack of safety, efficacy, and informed consent for childhood vaccines.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Kristin Ditzel

She spoke about her neurological disability after taking a COVID vaccine.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Patricia Leidl

She spoke about the trials of finding medical treatment for her severe vaccine injury.
(Vancouver: May 4, 2023)

Dr. Ben Sutherland

A researcher for Oceans and Fisheries Canada, he spoke about the consequences of vaccine mandates on his work.
(Vancouver: May 3, 2023)

Lisa Bernard

A nurse, she testified on vaccine injury and the impact of lockdowns on patient care.
(Vancouver: May 3, 2023)

Dr. Charles Hoffe

A physician, he discussed natural immunity and COVID vaccine health issues.
(Vancouver: May 3, 2023)

Aurora Bisson-Montpetit

A former nurse, fired from her job due to mandates, she investigated the public health authorities responsible for COVID measures.
(Vancouver: May 3, 2023)

Dr. Greg Passey

A physician specializing in post-traumatic stress disorder, he reviewed the narrative shaping and psychological damage from lockdowns.
(Vancouver: May 3, 2023)

Serena Steven

A former nurse, she described her vaccine-related injuries and hospital care during early lockdowns.
(Vancouver: May 2, 2023)

Philip Davidson

A former public service employee, he testified about job loss due to vaccine mandates.
(Vancouver: May 2, 2023)

Vanessa Rocchio

She described her cardiac problems after taking a COVID-19 vaccine.
(Vancouver: May 2, 2023)

Jennifer Curry

She spoke about her severe vaccine injury and its impact on her life.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

Darcy Harsch

He testified about the impact of being put on unpaid leave due to vaccine mandates.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

Suzanne Brauti

She described how she was denied a religious exemption and lost her job.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

Grace Neustaedter

A registered nurse, she testified on the workplace pressures to comply with vaccine mandates.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

John Carpay

A lawyer, he testified on legal issues regarding vaccine mandates.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

Judy Soroka

A former nurse, she spoke about how her health condition deteriorated without access to treatment, resulting in pain and disability.
(Red Deer: April 28, 2023)

Dr. Gregory Chan

A physician, he testified on the problems of reporting vaccine adverse events.
(Red Deer: April 26, 2023)

Dr. Maria Gutschi

A pharmacist and drug regulatory specialist, she discussed problems with the development and manufacturing of the mRNA vaccines.
(Saskatoon: April 21, 2023)

James Kitchen

A lawyer, he spoke about the courts’ failure to uphold individual Charter rights and the capture of professional regulatory bodies.
(Red Deer: April 21, 2023)

Ann McCormack

A former pharmacist, she spoke about Informed Consent.
(Red Deer: April 20, 2023)

Marjaleena Repo

She testified on how she was mistreated because of her mask exemption.
(Red Deer: April 20, 2023)

Dr. Francis Christian

A physician, he talked about the censorship of physicians, his concerns over vaccinating children, and the doctor–patient relationship.
(Red Deer: April 20, 2023)

Dr. Dion Davidson

A vascular surgeon, he stressed the importance of Informed Consent, the problems of vaccine adverse events, and the difficulties of reporting them.
(Truro: March 18, 2023)

David Leis

He spoke about government overreach and the failure of our institutions to serve the public.
(Winnipeg: April 15, 2023)

Elizabeth Cummings

She took a COVID vaccine based on false information from her doctor and suffered a vaccine injury.
(Truro: March 17, 2023)

Peter Van Caulert

He was coerced into taking the vaccine due to travel restrictions.
(Truro: March 17, 2023)

Terry LaChappelle

As a federal public servant, he was forced to get the vaccine or lose his job.
(Truro: March 17, 2023)

Paula Doiron

She took a vaccine due to false information and suffered an vaccine injury.
(Truro: March 17, 2023)

Leigh-Anne Coolen

She was forced by her employer to get vaccine and suffered a vaccine injury.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Michael Alexander

A lawyer, he testified that medical regulators charged health professionals with misinformation and harming the public when they spoke out against the public health narrative.
(Toronto: March 31, 2023)

Dan Hartman

He testified that his 17-year-old son was required to take a COVID vaccine to play hockey and died four days later.
(Toronto: April 1, 2023)

Artur Anselm
He was forced to take a vaccine to keep his job.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Chet Chisholm

A paramedic, the pandemic affected his ability to get treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, preventing him to return to work; he also suffered a vaccine injury.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Vonnie Allen
A nurse, she was fired for refusing to take a COVID-19 genetic vaccine.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Cathy Careen

Despite having a vaccine medical exemption, she lost her job for refusing to take a COVID vaccine.
(Truro: Marc16, 2023)

Dr. Patrick Phillips

A physician, he spoke about Informed Consent, his reporting of vaccine adverse reactions, and the suspension of his medical licence for speaking out about COVID policies.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Dr. Chris Milburn

A physician, he was fired from the ER for voicing his concerns about COVID-19 policies.
(Truro: March 16, 2023)

Conclusion

Long held and codified principles of medical practice were systematically and universally set aside during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The patient–healthcare provider relationship has severely eroded, and it is not clear how, or when, this may be restored. Patients were given false, incomplete, or misleading information, and the political narrative and patently false information was allowed to prevail with little or no push back from the professions.

Political leaders, healthcare regulatory boards, delivery institutions, and individual practitioners violated their fundamental responsibilities to the citizens of Canada in favour of a politically motivated policy that required as many citizens to be vaccinated as possible.

Draconian measures were imposed on the healthcare industry from political and industry players, and by not questioning those policies, the health and wellness of Canadians was severely impacted: many died, many continue to suffer, and there are reports of ongoing vaccine injuries and deaths.

These impacts include death of patients either directly due to mandated measures (for example, vaccine) or indirect effects (for example, mental health, suicide, lack of care, and activity).

The most vulnerable members of Canadian society were the most severely affected. Seniors, people with special needs, those requiring healthcare, and children were treated in accordance with centrally dictated policies rather than by healthcare practitioners in the field.

Steps are required to make sure that these overall institutional failures are never allowed to happen again.

Recommendations

A. A civilian-led detailed investigation must be carried out to determine who (at all levels) were responsible for these breaches of medical ethics and to recommend criminal investigations as appropriate.

B. Existing senior members of healthcare regulatory agencies responsible for the abandonment of long-held and honoured principles of medical care should, as appropriate, stand criminal investigation.

C. Each province and territory, including the federal government must establish civilian control and oversight to the existing regulatory agencies, including regularly scheduled and publicly available reviews of their activities. These appointments cannot be politically motivated and should be carried out in public with real input from citizens.

D. Each Province must Establish an office of the independent Ombudsmen available to both practitioners and patients.

E. Develop laws making it illegal to deny elderly residents of care facilities from seeing visitors.

F. Regulatory Agencies must Enforce existing laws concerning patient confidentially, requirement for Informed Consent, and the level of care that is required by each healthcare professional.

G. Establish laws ending centralized control of individual patient care. Patient care is a matter between a patient and their healthcare provider. This relationship cannot be violated through central government planning edicts. The public health service should never be directing patient care, which is a personal matter between the healthcare provider and the patient.

H. Ensure that RAW data is promptly and fully disclosed, eliminating the necessity for Access to Information Act (AIA) requests and associated fees, especially when such requests come from patients or researchers.

I. Mandatory independent experts must be added to all panels who are screened for conflict of interest.

J. There must be a criminal investigation of the manufacturers and distributers of any of the vaccines that were administered to the public under false and misleading information. If manufacturers and distributors are found to have acted inappropriately, they should bear the costs of these investigations, as well as any damages assessed. The burden of investigation expenses should be placed on the guilty parties.

K. Ensure Protection for healthcare professionals and journalists acting in good conscience.

L. No removal of liability protections against manufacturers and regulators.

M. Strengthen the requirement for healthcare practitioners to independently review and approve of any treatment or procedure that they are recommending to a patient.

N. Establish an annual requirement for medical ethics training for all healthcare providers; this should be a career long requirement and may be made up of several modules completed through a multi-year process.

O. Political figures who are responsible for the implementation of these mandatory programs must be held accountable in an open and public forum.

P. All members of the committees that implemented the mandates must be exposed to the public, including all records of internal discussions and recommendations. An investigation into these actions needs to be carried out and if criminal, unethical, or incompetent actions are identified, punitive actions must be implemented.

Q. Develop and regularly update comprehensive ethical guidelines and standards that cover a wide range of medical and healthcare practices, including areas such as consent, confidentiality, end-of-life care, resource allocation, and conflicts of interest.

R. Ensure that ethical guidelines are widely accessible to healthcare professionals, patients, and members of the public, fostering transparency and accountability.

S. Establish and support institutional ethics committees in healthcare organizations, consisting of diverse stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, ethicists, legal experts, members of the public, and patient representatives. Empower these committees to provide guidance, consultation, and ethical review of complex cases, research protocols, and policy development.

T. Strengthen practices and policies that ensure patients‘ rights to make informed decisions about their healthcare, including the right to refuse treatment, access their medical records, and participate in shared decision-making.

U. Promote clear communication between healthcare practitioners and patients to enhance understanding and respect for patient autonomy.

V. Safeguard patient confidentiality and privacy by maintaining strict protocols for the storage, access, and sharing of medical information, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

W.  Provide ongoing education and training to healthcare professionals on the importance of maintaining patient confidentiality and the potential implications of breaches.

X. Ensure rigorous ethical review processes for research involving human subjects, promoting Informed Consent, minimizing risks, protecting vulnerable populations, and upholding the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence.

Y. Support the work of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in reviewing research proposals, monitoring ongoing studies, and ensuring compliance with ethical guidelines.

Z. Foster a culture of ethical leadership and professional conduct in healthcare organizations, emphasizing integrity, honesty, empathy, and accountability at all levels.

AA. Establish mechanisms to address and investigate ethical misconduct or breaches of professional standards, ensuring appropriate consequences and opportunities for remediation.

BB. Engage patients and the public in discussions and decision-making processes related to medical ethics, promoting shared decision-making and incorporating diverse perspectives.

By implementing these recommendations, Canada can maintain and strengthen medical ethics, ensuring the highest standards of patient care, while fostering trust between patients and healthcare professionals and upholding the ethical principles that underpin the healthcare system. Regular review, continuous education, and engagement of stakeholders are vital to address evolving ethical challenges and promote ethical behaviour in the medical field.