From the Editor

MEDICAL REGULATORS OFTEN FACE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES that become emotionally charged and politically polarizing. This may result in important regulatory initiatives being paralyzed due to lack of engagement or fear of backlash. Lack of taking regulatory action and avoiding controversy can potentially have long-term consequences.One of the most recent controversial medical issues was physicians on social media platforms denying the existence of COVID-19. This created significant conflict between the physician’s freedom of expression and potential harm to the public. In the article “COVID-denial Invites License Revocation in the UK,” (page 26) Cathal Gallagher and David Reissner discuss the United Kingdom’s regulatory approach and outcome in dealing with this controversial issue.The issue of climate change has become a politically polarizing issue with many healthcare regulators avoiding involvement in this arena. However, the unique role of healthcare regulatory bodies provides an opportunity to play a leadership role in addressing climate change. In the commentary “What Could (or Should) Be the Regulatory Response to the Wicked Problem of Climate Change?” (page 7) Zubin Austin and Aly Háji describe how medical regulators can act in a collaborative and active manner in climate change policy.In an original research article titled “Regulatory Body Perspectives on Complaints and Disciplinary Action Processes for Health Professionals,” (page 14) Ai-Leng Foong-Reichert and co-authors evaluated the Canadian health professional regulatory body approach to complaints and discipline. The authors discovered that there were differences in the complaint process across professions, across provinces, and within a province. This was impacted by differences in provincial health regulatory legislation. This resulted in significant differences in the disciplinary outcomes.