The doctor who featured in the ‘No’ campaign that aired last week is now at the centre of an online petition calling for her medical license to be stripped.
The online campaign, which has over 6,000 signatures, claims Dr Pansy Lai’s involvement in the campaign violates the Australian Medical Association’s code of ethics as well as the Declaration of Geneva.
“It is clear that Dr Pansy Lai has misused her privileged position as a medical practitioner in the harmful and hateful ‘no’ campaign, which is a clear violation of her oath to the Declaration,” the petition reads.
The petition concludes that “she has used her standing as a medical professional to directly cause harm to the LGBTIQ population, in direct opposition to her ethical obligation to be supporting the health and welfare of people”.
Dr Lai also told The Australian she had received threats since the ad aired, reporting to police that someone had warned she would be shot “this week”.
WATCH: Penny Wong’s emotional speech for same-sex marriage.
Coalition for Marriage spokeswoman Monica Doumit has condemned the petition, saying the outcry threatens others who campaign against same-sex marriage.
“In seeking to ruin the career of a doctor who dares to disagree with its agenda, the same-sex marriage lobby has shown, yet again, that it has no interest in freedom of speech,” Ms Doumit told The Australian.
“The petition against Dr Lai is a threat not only to her, but to any others who might try to voice their opinion. The message is loud and clear: agree on same-sex marriage or else.”
The petition accuses Dr Lai of wilfully spreading “misinformation and non-scientific evidence” in the “harmful and hurtful” ‘No’ campaign and asks AMA to deregister her.
Last week, Dr Lai was accused of promoting gay conversion therapy – a claim she denies, but admits she doesn’t see any harm in willing people undergoing them.
AMA president Michael Gannon expressed disappointment of the petition and firmly rejected suggestions she would be disbarred.
“The regulator and the medical board cannot decide to take someone’s livelihood away from them because they have a different point of view to the one they hold,” he said.
