Doctor who spoke out on public health issue is sued
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A doctor who claims he was doing his job according to the tenets of the Hippocratic oath when he spoke out about risks to health from the operations of a major logging company in Tasmania is being sued for causing alleged damage to the company抯 business activities.
Dr Frank Nicklason, a staff specialist physician at the Royal Hobart Hospital, is one of 20 defendants, including prominent environmentalists and another doctor, named in the writ by Gunns Ltd, which is seeking almost $A6.3m (?.6m; $5m; �3.8m) in damages.
Dr Nicklason said the case may stop doctors raising legitimate health concerns because of fear of being involved in prolonged and expensive legal action. He said that although the case would not silence him it had already affected the forestry debate, which is dividing Tasmania.
"It has succeeded in shutting other people up in Tasmania, mainly small local environmental and community groups," he said of the writ, which was served in December.
Dr Nicklason faces years of legal action and a damages claim of $A250 000 for calling for an independent risk assessment of large piles of woodchips in the port of Burnie. He made the call in 2002, as a spokesman for the non-aligned lobby group Doctors for Forests.
He said the Hippocratic oath required him to prevent illness not just in patients but in society as well, and he believed, after talking with experts, that the stockpiles of shredded wood on the wharf posed potential health risks to Burnie抯 citizens.
His research showed that legionella bacteria, fungal organisms, and wood dust, all of which posed health risks, could have been in the stockpiles, some of which had been undisturbed for years. The local medical community, however, had said nothing.
The management at Gunns is refusing to comment on the case, but its own inquiries found that the stockpiles posed no danger to public health.
The state chairman of the Tasmanian Australian Medical Association Dr Michael Aizen said Dr Nicklason had been caught up in Gunns "shotgun" approach, which was to sue a wide range of its critics.
"In principle I feel that using the law to control the expression of concern about public health is wrong. If Gunns had any concerns they should have replied to Dr Nicklason with scientific arguments," he said.(Sydney Christopher Zinn)
Dr Frank Nicklason, a staff specialist physician at the Royal Hobart Hospital, is one of 20 defendants, including prominent environmentalists and another doctor, named in the writ by Gunns Ltd, which is seeking almost $A6.3m (?.6m; $5m; �3.8m) in damages.
Dr Nicklason said the case may stop doctors raising legitimate health concerns because of fear of being involved in prolonged and expensive legal action. He said that although the case would not silence him it had already affected the forestry debate, which is dividing Tasmania.
"It has succeeded in shutting other people up in Tasmania, mainly small local environmental and community groups," he said of the writ, which was served in December.
Dr Nicklason faces years of legal action and a damages claim of $A250 000 for calling for an independent risk assessment of large piles of woodchips in the port of Burnie. He made the call in 2002, as a spokesman for the non-aligned lobby group Doctors for Forests.
He said the Hippocratic oath required him to prevent illness not just in patients but in society as well, and he believed, after talking with experts, that the stockpiles of shredded wood on the wharf posed potential health risks to Burnie抯 citizens.
His research showed that legionella bacteria, fungal organisms, and wood dust, all of which posed health risks, could have been in the stockpiles, some of which had been undisturbed for years. The local medical community, however, had said nothing.
The management at Gunns is refusing to comment on the case, but its own inquiries found that the stockpiles posed no danger to public health.
The state chairman of the Tasmanian Australian Medical Association Dr Michael Aizen said Dr Nicklason had been caught up in Gunns "shotgun" approach, which was to sue a wide range of its critics.
"In principle I feel that using the law to control the expression of concern about public health is wrong. If Gunns had any concerns they should have replied to Dr Nicklason with scientific arguments," he said.(Sydney Christopher Zinn)