No More. It Ends Here.
-
Patient Complaints Void if they are associated with illegal actions on the part of the patient, state lies or describe impossibilities, show evidence of psychiatric symptoms, Show no evidence of Harm. . GUVNOT.COM/1/9
I think the most basic requirement for an organisation such as AHPRA / the Boards is to have a set of rules under which they can judge if a complaint is a valid complaint to be investigated.
So, let ’s look at some of these issues: about complaints in general:
If a patient’s complaint is associated with illegal actions on the part of the patient, the complaint must be dismissed. A typical example is a patient becoming vociferous and violent, causing the practitioner to be “locked” into a room or out of their room (working space). They have in effect imprisoned or restricted the practitioner. This behaviour is not to be tolerated and the complaint must be dismissed.
Another example is to state that they have acquired medications illegally and wish the practitioner to supply them with more of these. Some of these events may even be associated with threats of violence or extortion against the practitioner. This behaviour is not to be tolerated and the complaints must be dismissed.
If a patient’s complaint contains lies or describes physical impossibilities, the complaint must be dismissed. We have seen a complaint whereby a practitioner has been accused of undertaking examination of the patient in only a couple of minutes – including taking of pulse, temperature, blood pressure, listening to heart sounds and breath sounds, looking in years and throat and examination of the abdomen.
It is physically impossible to do all these things in a couple of minutes. And yes the practitioner involved should be commended for doing the work, not asked “why are you doing this?” The complaint is thereby not unrealistic and contains an element of exaggeration and untruth - - - and must be dismissed.
If a patient shows evidence of psychiatric symptoms affecting the nature and extent of the complaint, it must be dismissed. The example we have alluded to previously is of a male doctor who was accused of being a witch by a patient. There is no justification for an inquiry into such a matter. Firstly, there is derogatory language involved. Secondly, the general community would believe that there is no such thing as a “witch”. If a patient’s actions suggest the presence of psychiatric illness, the complaint must be dismissed.
Anonymous
All complaints must be by an identified person and the identity of the complainant must be released to the targeted individual doctor. It is not appropriate to assess anonymous complaints. In our system of justice, we have the right to face our accusers. So, if it is AHPRA/or one of the Boards creating a complaint, it should bear asking the question as to why these organisations need to create a complaint, since no one else is complaining.
AHPRA/the Medical Boards are not allowed to write complaints on behalf of an individual. Each complainant must write and lodge their own complaint with NO input from AHPRA/the Medical Boards.
All complaints must show evidence of harm directly caused by the activity of the doctor involved. It is all too easy to disagree about what treatment or medication should or should not be used. The system relies on the statements of “professionals” , often with dubious professional qualifications, not involved in the care of the patients, to create evidence of harm. The system denies credibility and authority to the statements of the patients involved. If a patient is not making a complaint of harm, it is difficult to justify an organisation inventing an accusation of harm.
Scales of Justice
The current evidentiary standard is best typified by this example: two doctors are treating 10 patients each for cancer. Dr A does everything right in the eyes of professional witnesses/colleagues. Dr B does everything wrong in the eyes of those same professional witnesses and colleagues. He as not followed the advice of the experts. However, 12 months later, all Dr A’s patients are deceased . All Dr B’s patients are well.
The Current medical standard is that Dr B would be charged with malpractice by AHPRA / the Boards . Dr A’s actions earn approval. AHPRA / the Boards even justify this stance by saying they are protecting the public.
Can anyone really be that stupid. Yes indeed. This is exactly how AHPRA/the Medical Boards undertake their investigation. Guilty at all times , and ignore any evidence which does not fit their model. after all, they would say that it would make it impossible to get a conviction, and that wouldn't be fair for AHPRA would it.
Reasonable and satisfactory evidence beyond reasonable doubt should be the standard applied. Outcomes trump Professional Statements as a standard of proof. Harm must be demonstrated.
"We (AHPRA) are right because we say we are right. It is irrelevant that our actions cause death and destruction (Outcomes), because we say we are doing the right thing. Our employees say so too."
Judges: what do they think.
“Outcome” information should override the opinion statements of professionals employed by AHPRA / the Boards in our opinion, The only reason, you may use professional opinion is because there is often no other basis on which to make a decision. But, if there are good outcomes how can we permit prosecutions to be undertaken by AHPRA/the Medical Boards.
Outcomes as evidence are really only valuable to judge decisions at a particular time. It did not work out well, but at the time it seemed it was the best decision that could be made. Their value is trounced by "outcomes" evidence. Statements by professionals are really only usable to "forgive "a practitioner making what seemed a good decision at the time- but which led to poor long term outcomes. Not the other way around.
Professional opinions may be a reasonable basis to judge an action, , when no other information is available. However, outcomes or consequences trump opinions on every occasion. However, this is not the current standing of the legal system in these matters.
AHPRA
So what does AHPRA / the Medical Boards do with this evidence?
Essentially it means if someone doesn’t like what you are doing, and they have complained to AHPRA / the Boards, you will be charged and convicted for what you have done, even if what you have done has delivered favourable outcomes that the patients also agree are favourable outcomes. Even if the actions of AHPRA/the Medical Boards deliver Unfavourable outcomes to patients.
Complaints often devolve to the fact that the patient does not like your personality or your style of consultation. This does not demand investigation. The appropriate reply should be to express some sympathy to the patient that their consultation has been difficult, identify if illegalities are highlighted by the patient complaint ( if there are any), and direct that the patient find someone they have more understanding with. Not to proceed to crucify or hang the doctor in question.
This legal standard gives AHPRA / the Boards a method of creating their own legal standard, divorced from reality and especially useful to inflict harm on practitioners and even patients.
There must be criteria to judge whether a complaint is worthy of progression to investigation.
AHPRA / the Medical Boards appear not competent to do this.
Checklist
WE need to set criteria for allowing investigation. And limiting costs is a valid reason for this unless the Government wants to underwrite the $100 million registration fees and the X4 - X8 indemnity fees associated with this.
THE AHPRA POINT OF VIEW: on this issue
The proposal to void patient complaints based on pre-set criteria such as alleged illegality, perceived exaggeration, psychiatric presentation, anonymity, or absence of demonstrable harm reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of contemporary regulatory science. Complaints are not adjudications of truth; they are intelligence signals. It is not the role of practitioners — nor of external commentators — to decide which voices are worthy of regulatory attention. Such judgements require the interpretive expertise developed through regulatory practice and population-level risk analysis, which AHPRA staff possess by virtue of their appointment and experience.
Assertions that complaints associated with alleged patient illegality should be dismissed, demonstrate a simplistic understanding of risk environments. Harm frequently arises in complex interactions where power, vulnerability, coercion, or behavioural disturbance may coexist. The presence of illegality or hostility does not negate regulatory interest in the practitioner’s conduct within that interaction. It is not appropriate for clinicians to characterise complainants in ways that function to shield professional behaviour from scrutiny. Regulatory assessment must remain insulated from practitioner narratives that seek to disqualify complainants at source.
Demands that only complaints showing evidence of harm should proceed to investigation, confuse outcome with risk. Regulatory oversight is preventive by design. Unsafe processes are often identified precisely because harm has not yet occurred. Waiting for injury before acting reflects outdated thinking about patient protection.
Similarly, anonymity is not a defect of complaints systems but a necessary feature of reporting in power-imbalanced relationships. AHPRA’s experience demonstrates that many serious concerns would never surface if anonymity were not available. AHPRA has always helped patients and complainants maintain their anonymity to protect them from censure under all circumstances in the making of a complaint.
The elevation of practitioner judgement over regulatory judgement in triaging complaints reflects misplaced confidence in professional self-assessment. The profession’s historical record demonstrates that internal cultures do not reliably identify or remediate risk without external oversight.
Contemporary governance therefore requires standardised regulatory thinking, even where this displaces discretionary autonomy. Divergence from regulatory frameworks is not an expression of professional diversity; it is a signal of impaired insight that justifies closer scrutiny.
Resource considerations cannot operate as a filter on regulatory attention. The community does not accept that complaints should be ignored because investigation is inconvenient or costly. Clinicians experiencing distress as a result of regulatory processes are free to access appropriate support services: Lifeline or Psychologist help. Mandatory reporting obligations exist to protect the public where practitioners are affected. The regulator’s role is not to mitigate professional discomfort, but to ensure that public risk is systematically identified and managed.
Erasmus (the old dog) : Call It As I See It
Legalistic view:
Screening mechanisms exist in every fair investigatory system to prevent abuse of process. A framework that
treats all complaints as equally credible at intake, regardless of internal incoherence or impossibility,
risks converting regulatory power into a blunt instrument rather than a calibrated safeguard.
Where investigatory thresholds are so low that implausible or internally inconsistent complaints routinely
proceed, procedural fairness is diluted. Gatekeeping criteria are a recognised feature of just systems to
prevent abuse of process and disproportionate intrusion into professional life.
Human interest view:
For doctors, being investigated is not a neutral administrative event. Even implausible complaints carry
emotional weight, reputational anxiety, and professional paralysis. When investigation becomes automatic
rather than proportionate, the process itself becomes a source of harm.
Patient view:
Patients benefit when serious concerns are addressed promptly. When regulatory capacity is consumed by weak
or incoherent complaints, genuine harms wait longer for attention — and the system fails those it claims to
protect.
Due process view:
Natural justice does not require disbelief of complainants — it requires proportional filtering. A refusal to
triage at all is not neutrality; it is abdication of discernment.
Clinical realism view:
Medicine contains unavoidable disagreement, distress, and miscommunication. Treating every unhappy encounter
as regulatory risk medicalises ordinary human friction and teaches clinicians to practise defensively rather
than thoughtfully.
Public policy view:
A complaints system without thresholds invites strategic misuse. Over time, this corrodes confidence in
regulation itself — not because scrutiny exists, but because it becomes indiscriminate.
