Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier David Eby, and Health Minister Adrian Dix On Vaccine Mandates, and the Future of Public Health in British Columbia
Dr. Henry, Premier Eby, and Minister Dix,
I am writing to you as a former public health professional who worked within British Columbia’s health system during the COVID-19 Pandemic, and as someone whose employment with Island Health ended in 2022 after I declined COVID-19 vaccination based on documented medical concerns (notably a history of anaphylaxis, a condition for which two physicians and an allergist indicated further assessment was warranted prior to vaccination).I do not write this letter lightly. I write it because there are questions that remain unresolved, and because those questions matter for the future of public health in this province.
During the Pandemic, extraordinary measures were taken. These included vaccine mandates that fundamentally altered the conditions of employment for thousands of healthcare workers and other professionals. Many lost their jobs. Others complied under pressure, despite personal hesitation, medical concerns, or uncertainty about the evolving evidence. These mandates raised serious ethical questions in relation to principles outlined in documents such as the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.
Public health measures extended beyond guidance and into areas of employment, mobility, and daily life. For some, these measures provided reassurance. For others, they resulted in exclusion from public spaces, loss of livelihood, and a lasting sense of division. The policies raised questions about how risk and benefit were communicated, and how informed consent was understood when policy, employment, and daily life became intertwined. The Pandemic began with the message “Be Kind, Be Calm, Be Safe” and “We’re all in this together.” Over time, for many, what followed did not align with those words, creating a gap between public messaging and lived experience.
Alongside these impacts, there have been individuals who reported adverse health experiences following vaccination, as well as those who approached vaccination with legitimate medical concerns or uncertainty. While these cases are complex and not always easily interpreted at a population level, they remain part of the broader reality that people experienced and should notbe dismissed without careful examination. At the time, these measures were presented as necessary to protect the system and the public. Dissenting views, such as those raised by Dr. Hoffe regarding potential adverse events, were often characterized as misinformation or as a threat to public safety. In some cases, public statements from leadership reinforced this framing.
Meanwhile, leaders in this province continue to make broad, sweeping questionable statements about the need to vaccinate to this day.In December 2025, Nanaimo MLA Sheila Malcolmson publicly encouraged all British Columbians to receive COVID-19 vaccination. The message was broad and unequivocal. It reflected a continued level of certainty that sits in tension with the more varied experiences that have emerged over time, including the recognized association between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis in certain populations, particularly young males.
As British Columbia approaches the implementation of the Health Professions and Occupations Act on April 1, many health-care professionals are expressing concern about the structure and implications of the new regulatory framework. Recent reporting has outlined several key changes, including the consolidation of regulatory colleges, the introduction of a government-appointed director of discipline, the public posting of all rulings including minor matters, and the absence of a formal appeal process. Leaders within the medical community have raised questions about how these changes may affect professional independence, openness in patient care, and the ability to recruit and retain practitioners in British Columbia. These concerns do not appear to be rooted in resistance to accountability, but rather in a desire to ensure that regulatory systems remain fair, balanced, and conducive to both public safety and professional integrity. For those who experienced the consequences of Pandemic-era policies directly, these questions are not theoretical.
Public health does not operate on policy alone. It operates on trust. Trust is built when people feel that their circumstances are seen, that their voices are heard, and that decisions are made with humility and willingness to acknowledge that things could have been done differently when they don’t go according to plan. It is weakened when policies appear rigid, when dissent is dismissed, or when individuals feel that their experiences do not fit within the framework being applied. Trust is not restored by reinforcing power. It is restored by demonstrating a willingness to examine where decisions fell short, and how future responses will be improved.
A central question now emerges: Why are authority and decision-making powers being further entrenched when there has been no transparent, independent accounting of key decisions made during the Pandemic? Before expanding institutional authority, should there not be a clear and visible process of review, reflection, and accountability? Policies such as vaccine mandates led to real consequences for people, including job loss and the marginalization of individuals with legitimate medical concerns. Reports of adverse events and injuries, while complex and often difficult to assess, have also contributed to public concern and deserve careful, open examination. As new legislation comes into force, there is an opportunity to reflect on how trust is being rebuilt, not assumed.
How will individual circumstances be considered within this new regulatory system?
What safeguards are in place to ensure that proportionality and fairness remain central to disciplinary processes?
How will the system respond if unintended consequences emerge, particularly in areas such as professional retention and openness in patient care?
These are not abstract questions. They go to the core of how a public health system functions over time. The goal is a health-care system that is safe, effective, and worthy of public confidence.
Reaching that goal requires not only strong policy, but a willingness to examine past decisions,to listen to those affected, and to adapt where necessary.This letter is offered in that spirit.
This letter also reflects themes explored more fully in my book, Follow the Science: How a CountryLost the Line Between Science and Empathy, and How We Find Our Way Home, which documents my experience within the public health system during the COVID-19 Pandemic andthe broader questions that have emerged from that period. For context and supporting material, I have made the work available at www.followthescience.ca. I hope you will take the time to look at the website and book.
Sincerely,
Kevin Vowles