The following is taken from Bill Madden’s WordPress, an Australian ‘Medical law, abuse law, NDIS & civil liability blog’. The case, Medical Board of Australia v Kok (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 650 is about a doctor’s social media use but the principles will be applicable to all health practitioners including paramedics.
Medical Board of Australia v Kok (Review & Regulation) [2025] VCAT 650 (Link to AUSTLII).
In this matter, the Tribunal found that Dr Kok engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 5 of the Health Practitioner National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic), in that, between 20 May 2010 and 15 October 2021, Dr Kok posted and published certain content (including images, comments and ‘reposts’) on social media and internet forums.
Dr Kok admitted to making each of the posts on social media and internet forums. He denied the conduct was conduct regulated by the National Law but conceded that some of the posts fell short of the standards in the professions codes of conduct and amounted to discourtesy toward and denigration of other medical practitioners and health providers.
The Tribunal found that Dr Kok had engaged in conduct which involved 54 posts which contained statements that:
- Denigrated, demeaned and slurred medical practitioners who provided abortion treatment to patients, recognised and treated gender dysphoria, or recognised that people who are transgender, are not suffering from a mental health condition;
- Expressed sentiments of violence and/or made derogatory statements towards racial and religious groups and members of the profession who provide abortion services;
- Expressed views that denigrated, demeaned and disrespected and were derogatory to LGBTQI+ persons and community;
- In relation to the COVID-19 pandemic response denigrated, demeaned and slurred people who accepted and/or considered it right to follow public health orders;
- Drew on and legitimised anti-vaccination and vaccination hesitancy rhetoric and contained misleading information regarding vaccines.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the proven conduct should be characterised as professional misconduct within the meaning of the definition of professional misconduct in paragraph (a) and (c) of section 5 of the National Law.
The matter will next be listed for hearing regarding the appropriate determination (orders).
Australian Emergency Law 
Don’t ever think, that you have a ‘day off’, or that you have a ‘private life’.
Once your name is listed as a so-called ‘Health Professional’ in Australia …. you have no private life. You are the property of The State, 24/7.
It might be better to say “You are a member of the profession, 24/7”. The point of health profession regulation is that the professions are regulated by independent boards. The boards are not the State.