Tribunal finds GP's posts demeaned fellow medical professionals and vilified minority groups
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has upheld the suspension of a Melbourne GP after finding that his conduct on social media over an 11-year period amounted to professional misconduct.
The tribunal found that the GP engaged in professional misconduct in 54 out of 85 social media posts he made between May 2010 and October 2021, which demeaned fellow medical professionals, vilified minority groups, and disseminated misleading information about public health, including vaccines and COVID-19.
The GP was first suspended in August 2019 following complaints to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) about his social media activity.
The Medical Board of Australia later referred the matter to VCAT under section 193 of the National Law, citing 85 posts spanning more than a decade.
The Tribunal found that Kok's online commentary included inflammatory language describing abortion as "baby killing" and "massacres of babies."
Pattern of misconduct
In one post, he referred to the Royal Women's Hospital as "Melbourne's premier publicly-funded baby killing facility." He also compared abortion providers to "serial contract-killers" and "butchers."
"The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post as far as it refers to abortion being the massacre of babies… denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who provide abortion treatment to patients," VCAT said in its decision.
In addition, the GP made multiple posts disparaging transgender individuals and doctors who treat gender dysphoria, referring to gender-affirming treatment as "medical butchery" and "genital mutilation."
"The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the use of the term medical butchery for legal and medically acceptable treatment for gender dysphoria denigrates, demeans and slurs medical practitioners who recognise and treat gender dysphoria," VCAT said.
The GP's comments extended to COVID-19, where he promoted anti-vaccination rhetoric and undermined public health measures.
VCAT found that the GP, in one post, implied that people who supported public health orders "were like the functionaries of Nazi Germany."
"The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the post expressed views in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response that denigrated, demeaned, and/or slurred persons that accepted and considered it right to follow public health orders, including by likening them to followers of totalitarian regimes, including Nazi Germany," VCAT said.
GP's defence rejected
The GP's defence centred on his right to freedom of speech under common law, the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
He argued that his posts, many of which were rooted in his evangelical Christian beliefs, represented personal political and religious expression, not professional conduct.
The GP, who has not practised medicine since his suspension nearly six years ago, also admitted to authoring the posts and conceded that some of his language was inflammatory and inappropriate.
While the Tribunal acknowledged his expressions of regret, it found that the sustained nature of the misconduct and its impact on the profession outweighed those considerations.
"There are significant types of conduct which may make a person not a fit and proper person to hold registration… even if they do not occur in clinical practice," the ruling stated.
A 'concerning precedent'
The Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), which represented the GP, said the decision is "deeply disappointing."
"[The decision] sets a concerning precedent for freedom of speech in Australia, particularly for professionals who hold Christian or conservative beliefs," the HRLA said in a statement.
"It confirms that regulators like AHPRA and the Medical Board have significant powers to discipline practitioners not only for what they do in their clinical practice, but for holding and expressing unpopular social or moral views – even in a private capacity."
According to the HRLA, the decision is also a "deeply concerning shift" in regulatory scope over personal speech, pointing out that the implications are serious for Christian professionals and those who hold views "outside of the progressive mainstream."
"The decision raises concerns about whether Australia will continue to allow employers, regulators, and government to exercise power over free speech and the expression of personal, political, and religious opinions," the HRLA said.
The group said it will continue to act for the GP and is carefully considering the prospects of appeal.
