GP accused of professional misconduct criticised entire State pandemic response, inquiry hears
Seán McCárthaigh
A family doctor accused of professional misconduct over his public comments on Covid-19 measures and restrictions had criticised “virtually every aspect of the State’s response to the pandemic,” a medical inquiry has heard.
An expert witness told a fitness-to-practise hearing of the Medical Council that Marcus de Brun, who operated his own medical practice in Rush, Co Dublin, had disagreed with all sorts of public health guidelines and initiatives in a large number of posts on his Twitter account.
Colin Bradley, who is head of the Family Medicine Department at the RCSI/UCD Malaysia Campus in Penang with over 30 years’ experience in general medicine, said it was “hubris for a single practitioner to feel that he had more expertise or wisdom” than an expert body established to advise the Government on how to respond to a “once in a lifetime pandemic.”
A report prepared for the Medical Council by Prof Bradley acknowledged that the views held by Dr de Brun were sincere, but it also noted that they were “out of kilter with the more widely held beliefs of most scientists and physicians.”
It also described the GP’s views on vaccines for Covid-19 as “alarmist.”
Dr de Brun is facing ten allegations of professional misconduct over his criticism of public health guidelines, lockdowns, the wearing of facemasks and Covid-19 vaccines introduced during the pandemic.
The Medical Council claims Dr de Brun’s comments and actions were inappropriate and undermined public health guidelines, as well as running contrary to sections of the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics.
However, the GP maintains that the deaths of his patients in a nursing home during the pandemic and the subsequent anger and upset he expressed via social media were “a consequence of Government guidelines and inaction of the Medical Council.”
Dr de Brun resigned from the Medical Council in April 2020 over what he claimed was the State’s failure to protect nursing home residents.
In evidence on the third day of the inquiry, Prof Bradley acknowledged that some of Dr de Brun’s criticisms of the State’s response to the pandemic were legitimate.
He said that most people, including members of the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) – which oversaw the Government’s handling of the pandemic – would probably accept that the decision to discharge patients from hospitals into nursing homes without adequate testing was “a misstep in the early days of the virus.”
He told the inquiry that he àlso accepted that it was reasonable for Dr de Brun to engage in debates and write articles about his views.
However, Prof Bradley said there were more appropriate channels to convey such views than social media without necessarily undermining public health guidelines.
The witness observed that it was much more reasonable that Dr de Brun had been one of over 20 GPs who had submitted “an alternative strategy” for responding to the pandemic, which he had no doubt was considered by NPHET.
He told counsel for the Medical Council, Neasa Bird BL, that he believed the allegations constituted professional misconduct as the GP’s conduct could be regarded as “disgraceful and dishonourable” as well as failing to meet the standards expected of doctors, particularly in relation to the use of social media.
Prof Bradley said the GP’s tweets were misleading and encouraged people not to take public health guidelines seriously.
He agreed with Ms Bird that their contents were “potentially falsely reassuring.”
Prof Bradley said Dr de Brun’s Twitter bio, in which he stated his views were personal, was an attempt to suggest they did not reflect those of the medical profession.
However, he said it was the unfortunate burden of being a registered practitioner that when one speaks in public, such views are seen as representing the medical profession.
Prof Bradley noted that the Guide to Professional Conduct and Ethics extended beyond the limitations of day-to-day work in a GP practice, and doctors had a responsibility for what they said in any public forum.
He added that the public put a lot of weight on what doctors say and “will be inclined to follow the lead of the guidance offered by doctors.”
Prof Bradley observed that the Covid-19 pandemic was a very dynamic situation where things were changing day by day.
He believed it was important that health professionals were not “jumping the gun” and making announcements about what should or should not be done until there was “more clear-cut evidence.”
As time went on, Prof Bradley said the understanding of the pandemic and how to manage it increased, which meant it was important for doctors to be aware of the opinions and advice of experts who were studying the pandemic and virus closely.
He also remarked that he considered lockdowns and looking for a vaccine as standard public health responses to infectious diseases and made “perfect sense.”
Prof Bradley said it was important that medical professionals should “sing from the same hymn sheet” as it would be difficult for the public to respond in a consistent manner if they were “constantly bombarded” with both sides of a debate.
He told the inquiry that one had to trust that scientific information was collated and examined by appropriate bodies whose deliberations would subsequently be followed.
He criticised Dr de Brun’s attendance at a public rally at the Custom House in Dublin on August 20th, 2022, when he failed to wear a facemask and observe social distancing.
He noted the GP had also shaken hands with individuals at a time when people were being told to avoid such contact.
Prof Bradley said Dr de Brun’s comments suggested that vaccines were dangerous and should not be administered, particularly to children, while he had dismissed the severity of the virus as “a nasty cold.”
He also claimed the GP had been disparaging of the medical profession.
The inquiry was adjourned until Friday, when Prof Bradley is due to be cross-examined by Dr de Brun, who is representing himself at the hearing.
