- Published on
Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) Amicus Brief: Supporting Dr. Paul Thomas and Medical Freedom
Defending Free Speech and the Right to Informed Consent Against Medical Board Overreach
I am honored to share that the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) has filed an amicus brief in support of my case before the U.S. Supreme Court. ICAN has been at the forefront of advocating for transparency in medical decision-making, the right to informed consent, and ensuring that Americans have access to scientifically sound health information. Their brief is a powerful defense of medical freedom, exposing how state medical boards are being weaponized against doctors who simply provide patients with full and honest medical information.
A Powerful Message from the Brief
"The Ninth Circuit’s decision calls out for this Court’s review for a myriad of reasons... More crucial, however, is the need for this Court to correct what will inevitably flow from this decision, which is the stifling of physicians’ speech and, with it, patients’ inability to give truly informed consent."
— ICAN Amicus Brief
Document Summary: What ICAN’s Brief Argues
- Defending Free Speech for Physicians – The brief argues that doctors should never face punishment simply for providing their patients with full, science-based information on medical procedures, including vaccines. Censoring medical professionals undermines trust in the doctor-patient relationship and erodes the right of individuals to make informed health decisions.
- The Oregon Medical Board’s Overreach – ICAN details how the Oregon Medical Board (OMB) revoked my medical license not because of any malpractice or harm, but simply because I offered parents a choice in how they approached vaccines. The brief argues that this is a clear violation of free speech protections and an attempt to silence any dissenting medical opinions.
- Informed Consent is Non-Negotiable – The ICAN brief makes it clear: Informed consent requires that patients receive all relevant medical information, including risks and benefits, without coercion. The OMB’s actions violate this principle by attempting to dictate what doctors can and cannot say about medical interventions.
- The Need for Supreme Court Intervention – If this precedent is allowed to stand, any doctor who challenges the pharmaceutical-driven narrative could face career-ending retaliation. The brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case and ensure that medical boards cannot silence physicians simply for presenting science that challenges the status quo.