Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A few years ago, we both became involved in medical politics to advocate for quality care for our patients in the face of growing healthcare cuts.

It dawned on many physicians that poor representation by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) enabled the provincial government’s systematic dismantling of our healthcare system.

In March of this year, we were both elected as chairs of the two largest OMA districts, representing nearly 20,000 physicians in District 5 (GTA, Dufferin, Muskoka, Simcoe) and District 11 (Toronto).

We had hoped to make the OMA into a member-driven organization that was transparent and accountable to frontline physicians.

Instead, the OMA’s increasingly toxic environment has driven us to submit our resignations today.

The OMA is a 137-year-old bureaucracy with an administrative staff of over 300.

It is accountable to no one and is a tool for the Ontario Liberal government, which ensures the organization’s survival through mandatory, legislated membership dues of nearly $70 million annually.

In recent months, the OMA was essentially passive in its resistance to three government bills that adversely impact patient care – 41, 84, and 87 – while we have been vocal advocates, trying to be the voice of our members who truly feel oppressed.

Bill 41 has led to the loss of patient privacy, wasteful expansion of healthcare bureaucracy at the expense of frontline care, and provincial medical standards being determined by government bureaucrats, instead of medical experts. Bill 84 has led to the loss of physicians’ conscience rights and Bill 87 to the loss of physicians’ rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, natural justice and due process, through regulatory college changes.

There is enormous pressure within the OMA to toe the party line.

Those who speak out, particularly when citing their elected titles, are targeted by OMA leadership and staff who maintain a “don’t rock the boat” mentality.

Until this year, individual OMA chairs controlled communications to their respective districts, yet our messages that often expressed opinions counter to OMA central were blocked.

Meanwhile a message from a loyal OMA official bypassed our authority and was distributed to our constituents with full use of their elected title.

The OMA has since encouraged a formal communications policy that would apply only to us.

Despite our elected legitimacy, we would essentially be muzzled.

The OMA continues to make up rules as it goes along.

Our efforts for organizational reform and independent thinking have been met with attempts at bullying and intimidation against us and other physicians from OMA leadership and staff.

A board member, and others within the OMA, submitted formal complaints against more than 40 doctors to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the regulatory body of doctors, for investigation.

These complaints may take years to process, and threaten the ability of dissenting doctors to practise medicine.

Why pretend to be for freedom of speech while simultaneously fostering an atmosphere of intimidation and fear?

Despite our hope for organizational renewal, we believe institutional inertia has prevented meaningful change within the OMA.

The OMA is like a chameleon, changing its colours. Double standards are applied liberally.

Even some new members of the OMA board and executive are either part of the perpetuation of bullying tactics, or have turned a blind eye to them.

The OMA continues to exist to serve itself first.

We feel we can no longer meaningfully advocate for physicians and patients within an organization so committed to suppressing dissent.

Hence our resignations.

Daring to voice different opinions from the OMA makes you a square peg in a round hole.

Until that changes, the OMA will be unable to win the respect and unity of Ontario’s physicians.

We will continue to advocate for our colleagues and patients through our grassroots efforts.

We implore the OMA to take a hard look in the mirror, and call for a fully independent, forensic review of the organization.

– Gill is the former chair of District 5 of the OMA. D’Souza is the former chair of District 11