Recently, attention has been drawn to a continuing professional development workshop titled “Social Media for Psychologists: Perils and Pitfalls” offered by Australian Health Professional Development (AHPD). The course description notes that complaints arising from social media activity are increasing and warns practitioners that even personal or private group activity may attract regulatory scrutiny.
The existence of such a course raises important questions about the current regulatory environment for health practitioners.
Professional development should primarily focus on clinical skills, patient care and professional knowledge. When registered practitioners feel the need for dedicated training on how to avoid complaints for lawful online expression, it suggests that many perceive genuine regulatory risk in participating in public discussion.
AHPRA’s Role and Social Media Guidance
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and the National Boards were established to protect the public by ensuring that only competent and ethical practitioners are registered. Their core responsibilities include addressing unsafe clinical practice, breaches of confidentiality, sexual misconduct and other forms of professional misconduct.
In recent years, AHPRA has extended its regulatory framework to practitioners’ online presence and public commentary. Through its Social Media Guidance and Codes of Conduct, professional obligations now apply not only in clinical settings but also to personal social media activity.
AHPRA’s guidance recognises freedom of expression:
“Ahpra and the National Boards recognise the freedom of expression for practitioners and their right to communicate, including advocating for causes via social media, provided their activities do not involve the abuse or discrimination of others, or present a risk to the public.”
This recognition is important. Health professionals should be able to contribute to public discussion, engage in scientific debate and advocate on matters of public interest without fear of regulatory intervention solely because their views are contested.
However, the guidance also states that regulatory action may be considered where a practitioner’s expression:
- presents a risk to public safety;
- provides false or misleading information or breaches privacy or confidentiality;
- risks the public’s confidence in their profession; or
- requires action to maintain professional standards.
While the first two categories are relatively clear, the concepts of “public confidence in the profession” and “maintaining professional standards” are more subjective and difficult to define objectively.
Uncertainty for Practitioners
Unlike patient harm or confidentiality breaches, “public confidence” is not a fixed or easily measurable standard. The guidance does not clearly explain whose confidence is being assessed, how it is measured, or what threshold must be crossed before lawful speech becomes grounds for regulatory action.
In a diverse society, particularly on matters involving evolving science, health policy and ethics, people will inevitably disagree. A statement that causes one group to lose confidence in a practitioner may increase the confidence of another. This creates uncertainty for practitioners who wish to participate in public discussion while remaining compliant with professional obligations.
Impact of Complaints and Investigations
AHPRA has acknowledged the significant psychological impact that complaints and investigations can have on practitioners. Public reporting and reviews have identified cases in which health practitioners subject to regulatory processes later died by suicide. While individual circumstances are complex, these findings have prompted calls for reforms to complaints handling, practitioner support and procedural fairness.
Even where no adverse finding is ultimately made, investigations can impose substantial professional, financial and psychological burdens long before any determination is reached.
The recent case of Dr Andrew Amos has further highlighted concerns regarding non-patient complaints, the use of immediate regulatory action, and the extent to which lawful public commentary can become the subject of professional scrutiny.
Why This Matters
When courses emerge to teach health professionals how to navigate social media complaints and regulatory investigations, it indicates that many practitioners perceive real risk in participating in public discussion. Professional regulation exists to protect patients and maintain standards of care. It should not create an environment in which practitioners feel compelled to self-censor for fear that lawful expression may trigger complaints or disciplinary action.
Open scientific debate and the ability to question prevailing assumptions are essential to the progress of knowledge and to informed public policy, including policy affecting women, children and families.
Women Speak Australia’s Position
Women Speak Australia has written formally to AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner expressing concerns about the regulator’s social media framework and seeking clarification on several matters, including:
- How AHPRA objectively assesses impacts on “public confidence”;
- What safeguards exist to prevent complaints being used to suppress legitimate scientific, professional or policy debate;
- Whether the absence of patient harm or a therapeutic relationship is adequately considered before investigations proceed; and
- The limits of AHPRA’s authority to regulate lawful speech outside clinical settings.
Public safety must remain the priority of professional regulation. At the same time, regulation should not come at the expense of intellectual freedom, scientific inquiry, procedural fairness or practitioner wellbeing.
Women Speak Australia supports proportionate, transparent and accountable regulation that protects patients while allowing health professionals to contribute to important public debates, including those concerning sex-based rights, evidence-based care and the safeguarding of children.