Open Letter to Dr. Bonnie Henry, Premier David Eby, and Health Minister Josie Osborne
On Vaccine Mandates, and the Future of Public Health in British Columbia
April 1, 2026
Dr. Henry, Premier Eby, and Minister Osborne,
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 not
be 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.
Sincerely,
Kevin Vowles
