In February 2026, nurse practitioner Julie K. Chisholm will face a disciplinary hearing before the College of Nurses of Ontario (CNO). The allegations relate to her care and prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is not a criminal or civil trial, rather it is a regulatory proceeding.
Freedoms Advocate is a national charity dedicated to defending human rights, including freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and we are funding Ms. Chisholm’s legal defence.
This case is not just about one nurse practitioner. It is about, among other things, whether healthcare professionals are permitted to:
• speak openly about treatment and health care options,
• prescribe off-label medications using evidence-based clinical judgment,
• respect patient choice and autonomy, and;
• challenge, based on scientific evidence, a majority narrative without fear of professional punishment.
The Real Issue: Freedom vs. Censorship
During and after the pandemic, public health guidance and what was described as “settled science” shifted repeatedly. Yet dissenting perspectives were treated—and, as this case demonstrates, continue to be treated—as unacceptable. Early public messaging suggested that mRNA vaccines would prevent infection; later communications changed to suggest they would reduce severe outcomes, reflecting a change in how their effects were characterized over time.
This evolving landscape underscores that scientific understanding was neither static nor one-sided. It also raises serious questions about whether regulators should discipline clinicians for exercising independent clinical judgment, respecting patient autonomy, and considering science-based treatment options supported by minority viewpoints during an unprecedented public health crisis. Ms. Chisholm and Freedoms Advocate maintain that on the facts of this case, healthcare professionals must retain the right to discuss, recommend, and prescribe evidence-supported substances based on clinical judgment and patient autonomy and consent, even if those treatments challenge mainstream narratives.
“I treated patients in good faith, with their consent, based on scientific evidence, and in the best interests of their health. The CNO never told me I couldn’t do what I did. No harm was done and my patients confirm that, and many have advised me that they benefited. In these circumstances, I must not be punished for exercising clinical judgment or for respecting patient autonomy. Prescribing contrary to the consensus at the time is not the same as practicing contrary to scientific evidence,” said Ms. Chisholm.
“This case opens a question for all healthcare professionals: if, based on minority scientific opinion, you question the prevailing view will you face discipline. And is that medicine—or censorship – to the detriment of professionals and their patients,” states Randy Crosson, Executive Director of Freedoms Advocate.
Regulators should not punish clinicians for doing what medicine has always required: asking questions, reviewing evidence, and placing patient autonomy first.
Patients have a right to choose medical care that combines standard medicine with evidence-based alternative treatments. That choice should not be punished.