THE Fiji Medical Association (FMA) has thrown its support behind the Fijian government’s plan to update the country’s public health laws but says the proposed reform must not come at the expense of medical oversight, clinical judgment and procedural safeguards.
In a submission on the Public Health (Amendment) Bill 2026, the association said it welcomed the Bill’s aim of modernising Fiji’s public health framework and improving the State’s ability to “prevent, detect, and respond to public health risks.”
But it warned that some of the proposed powers would move too far away from doctors and into the hands of environmental health officers, creating what it described as a risk to accountability in decisions that can affect people’s liberty, privacy and bodily integrity.
FMA acting president Dr Ronal Kumar said the association was not opposing reform, but pressing Parliament to ensure the new law keeps medical leadership at the centre of public health decision-making.
“Public health decisions involving quarantine, isolation, treatment, or vaccination are not purely administrative matters — they require sound clinical judgment and accountability,” he said.
“We want to see a balanced framework where environmental health and medical expertise work hand in hand.”
The Bill is intended to strengthen Fiji’s public health response, including outbreak management, healthcare waste controls and water safety regulation.
But the FMA said several clauses, as drafted, could dilute the role of medical officers while giving Environmental Health Practitioners expanded authority over quarantine, isolation, surveillance, information gathering and enforcement.
The association said it recognises the “important role of EHP in environmental inspection, sanitation, waste management, vector control, surveillance support, and enforcement of environmental health standards.”
But it argued that patient-facing decisions should not be treated solely as administrative tasks.
“These are matters that require the involvement and oversight of appropriately qualified medical practitioners,” the submission said.
The fight over how much power to give public health officers goes to the heart of the Bill’s most contentious provisions.
The FMA said the draft law gives the Head of Environmental Health and authorised officers powers to order medical examinations, order vaccination and treatment, vacate premises and even demolish buildings.
Those powers may be necessary in a serious outbreak, the association acknowledged, but they also “may engage constitutional rights” and need clearer protections.
Under the association’s proposal, compulsory orders for examination, treatment, vaccination, isolation or quarantine should require clinical sign-off from an appropriately qualified medical practitioner.
The Bill should also spell out written reasons for decisions, time limits, review or appeal pathways, and a requirement that officials use the “least restrictive measure necessary” to manage the risk.
The association also wants Parliament to define who counts as a “medical practitioner” for outbreak response.
As drafted, the wording is too vague and could leave uncertainty about qualifications, authority, and accountability in an emergency.
FMA says the role should be reserved for a practitioner with expertise in public health, infectious disease, emergency response, or clinical governance.
Governance, Enforcement and The Role of Doctors
The association’s concerns extend beyond outbreak orders. It wants stronger medical representation on the Board of Health, arguing that public health governance should include at least two medical practitioners, one with public health or population health expertise and another with active clinical or clinical governance experience.
One of those appointments, it said, should be nominated through a professional body such as the FMA.
It also called for clearer protocols to separate enforcement from clinical decision-making.
Environmental health practitioners, the association said, should remain central to inspection, sanitation, waste control and compliance work, but should operate within a “clinically governed framework” when decisions affect patient care, medical treatment or personal liberty.
On enforcement, the FMA said it supports penalties where necessary, but warned that heavy fines and strict compliance measures could disproportionately affect small businesses, rural health facilities, private clinics and community organisations.
It wants a graduated approach built around education, warnings, improvement notices and corrective action plans before penalties are imposed.
The association was more positive about other parts of the Bill. It said it supports stronger healthcare waste management requirements, tighter water safety regulation and the formalisation of outbreak teams that bring together medical, nursing, environmental health and operational expertise.
Dr Kumar said the association’s position was ultimately collaborative rather than confrontational.
“We share the Government’s vision for a stronger, more responsive public health system,” he said.
“But modernisation must go hand in hand with medical accountability, ethical safeguards, and respect for constitutional rights.”
The Bill will now face scrutiny as Parliament weighs how to balance faster public health powers with the safeguards doctors say are needed when the state can compel treatment, isolate individuals or shut down premises in the name of disease control.
The issue now for FMA is not whether Fiji should modernise its laws, but whether it can do so without weakening the clinical judgment that underpins them.
