Medical Censorship and Human Rights in Australia

As the CEO of Viz Medicinal, I am passionate about addressing the issue of medical censorship, particularly the exclusion of the Endocannabinoid System (ECS) from healthcare education. To any who knows about this system, it is clear that its omission not only greatly hampers the ability of healthcare professionals to provide comprehensive care, but also raises significant human rights concerns.

Imagine graduating healthcare professionals being able to opt out of learning about the skeletal system. Ridiculous, right? Allowing the ECS to be optional learning for healthcare professionals is equally ludicrous. We are letting our healthcare students down, we are letting our population down, and quite frankly, we are letting Australia down on the world stage.

Australia should be one of the leading producers of top-quality, organic plant medicines globally.

Why would any global healthcare market take our exporters seriously when the majority of our doctors are left bereft of any knowledge about the efficacy of our high quality, efficacious medications?

Economic Benefits

Including the ECS in medical education is not just a matter of human rights and better healthcare—it's an economic imperative.

Australia's medicinal cannabis industry has the potential to be a major player on the global stage, contributing significantly to the economy through exports and job creation. Educating healthcare professionals about the ECS is crucial for ensuring the credibility and effectiveness of our medicinal cannabis products internationally.

However, this should not be a "pay to play" scenario. Just as manufacturers of casts for broken arms do not pay for the skeletal system to be added to healthcare studies, we should not expect the cannabis industry to fund ECS education. There are two main reasons for this:

1. Bias and Commercial Outcomes: Industry-funded education risks skewing the information towards commercial interests, undermining the integrity and neutrality of medical education.
2. Healthcare Should Not Be Pay to Play: We must stop accepting that healthcare can be commodified in such a manner. Ensuring comprehensive medical education should be a public responsibility, not a commercial one.

"I'm not a health professional. I'm not a legal professional. I am a human, with rights. I feel called to advocate for patients who may never be able to access this powerful, natural medicine due to a refusal to acknowledge our human right to do so." Natalie D'Alessandro, CEO Viz Medicinal.

Human Rights in Australia: A Framework

In Australia, my top-level research about human rights, leads me to believe that we are protected through a combination of common laws, specific legislation, and international treaties. Although there is no comprehensive Bill of Rights, several legislative frameworks work together to ensure the protection of specific rights:

• The Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
• The Racial Discrimination Act 1975
• The Sex Discrimination Act 1984
• The Disability Discrimination Act 1992
• State and Territory Legislation such as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 in Victoria and the Human Rights Act 2019 in Queensland.

The Queensland Healthcare Human Rights Decision

A recent landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Queensland highlights the significance of human rights considerations in public policy. On February 27, 2024, the court declared that certain COVID-19 directives and policies mandating vaccines for Queensland Police and Ambulance Services members were unlawful due to a failure to properly consider human rights before issuing them.

This case involved two directives from the Police Commissioner and a policy from the Director-General of Queensland Health. The court found that the directives and policy did not meet the obligations under the Human Rights Act 2019, which requires public entities to properly consider and make decisions compatibly with human rights. Specifically, the court noted that:

• Proper consideration of human rights did not occur, as key documents were dated after the decisions were made.
• Decisions must be justified, particularly when they limit human rights, such as the right to full, free, and informed consent for medical treatment (Section 17(c)).

Implications for Medical Education and ECS

I believe this decision has broad implications for public entities, including educational institutions, which must now ensure that their policies and decisions comply with human rights obligations. It prompts several important questions:

• By definition, is the omission of ECS from medical curricula a human rights issue?
• What steps should State and Federal Health Departments and educational institutions take to properly consider human rights in their curricula decisions, and how can industry support them in a proactive manner?
• How can healthcare professionals become advocates for the inclusion of ECS education from their alma mater?
• How can we ensure all healthcare professionals upgrade their knowledge if they graduated with no ECS education?

Beyond Awareness and Advocacy

We need to move beyond simply raising awareness and advocating for the significance of the ECS and its role in human health. Excluding ECS education limits healthcare professionals' ability to provide comprehensive care, which I believe is a violation of the right to health. By framing this issue within the context of human rights, together we can emphasise the urgency of educational reform. It's time to hold decision-makers accountable for public health, rather than continually explaining why the ECS is important.

Legal and Policy Engagement

Legal action could be a viable path forward. By using the precedent set by the Queensland case, could we argue that the exclusion of ECS from medical education fails to meet the obligations under the Human Rights Act?

Policymakers must demonstrate that they have properly considered human rights in their decisions, particularly when these decisions affect the quality of healthcare education and, consequently, patient care.

Industry Response is Key

In your opinion, does the recent Queensland decision underscore the importance of human rights considerations in public policy and decision-making? Does this present an opportunity to advocate for the inclusion of the ECS in medical education as a human rights issue? By asking the right questions and leveraging legal precedents, we can work towards ensuring that healthcare professionals are equipped with the knowledge they need to provide the best possible care.

For me, only one question really remains for the industry: Can we actually work together, or is it the thrill of competition that's driving the industry?

Natalie D'Alessandro CEO, Viz Medicinal

References:

1. Clayton Utz, "Human rights obligations for public entities and recent Supreme Court of Queensland ruling," Clayton Utz.
2. Queensland Human Rights Commission, "Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)," Queensland Human Rights Commission.