Dr. Marc Lacroix “lacks nuance” by adopting “clear positions” at the start of the pandemic on a subject which was outside his field of competence, pleaded the complainant before the Disciplinary Council.
• Read also: “I am not an anti-mask”, testifies Dr. Marc Lacroix
Pressed with questions on his Facebook posts, including when he wrote “buffoon” above a March 2020 video of Dr. Arruda, the owner of Cliniques Médicales Lacroix, who faces a series of ethical charges for having in particular “criticized without restraint the decisions taken under the state of health emergency”, defended himself by speaking of “inconsistency” of the public health authorities. At that time, Dr. Lacroix had shared 22 times in 10 days the video of the former National Director of Public Health in which he mentions that the mask gave “a false impression of security”.
While the government was preparing to make the face covering compulsory, Dr. Lacroix had also relayed the demonstration against the wearing of the compulsory mask organized by the conspirator Stéphane Blais. “It was a complete about-face and that’s what I denounced,” explained the doctor, adding that he did not know the organizer of the demonstration at the time.
He also conceded that it was “a bit strong” to share Jeff Fillion’s tweet in which he claimed that “democracy was dead”, adding instead that democracy had been “clearly flouted”.
Lack of nuance
Olivier Bolduc’s lawyer, who filed the private complaint against Dr. Lacroix, used the doctor’s responses in closing arguments to argue that he had “lack of nuance” in his Facebook posts and interviews with Jeff Fillion at the CHOI radio. According to the lawyer, the respondent “lacked moderation”, “undermined the authority of the government in public health” and “minimized the impacts of COVID”.
The doctor had the right to speak in the media, assures the plaintiff, except that the family doctor spoke in an area of expertise that was not his. Me Guillaume Lavoie pointed out to the members of the council that “he never contradicts”, the declarations of Jeff Fillion during the interviews whereas contrary to the “polemicist”, the doctor has the duty to show reserve.
Freedom of expression
In response, Dr. Lacroix’s lawyer argued that professionals have the right to speak publicly. “It is at the heart of freedom of expression, maintained Me Mairi Springate.
The president of the board, however, questioned the lawyer several times during her argument. “Didn’t he have to do a minimum of verification?” Asked Marie-Josée Corriveau in particular about the organizer of the demonstration against the compulsory mask.
The lawyer believes that her client has not “overstepped the bounds at all”. On the contrary, the lawyer even filed a motion for abuse of process to drop all charges at the end of the argument. The council took this request as well as the verdict on the ethical charges against the doctor under advisement.
SEE ALSO
Reference-www.journaldequebec.com