Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Medical Doctor Pushes Political Agenda with Patients
If this story is true, it’s a disgusting abuse of power by a doctor, and worse yet—he’s a Republican. A doctor in Lakeland, FL, apparently makes a practice prior to important elections of promoting Republican candidates. A patient of his, who was receiving injections for chronic pain, described the exchange in this way:
The patient lay on an examination table, semi-clothed and crying, after having just received excruciating injections to help relieve her chronic pain.
At that point, she says, Dr. Tom Porter approached her and asked if she was registered to vote. Though stunned by the unexpected question, she said she was.
‘Republican, I hope,’ Porter responded.
I just looked at him and, I said, ‘That’s personal,’ the patient recalled. ‘So he was like, ‘Well, I hope so,’ and he kind of elaborated a bit about, ‘Democrats are doing nothing but destroying this country,’ and ‘They’re going to destroy our economy, and it’s finally getting better with all the Republicans in office’ . . . and he handed me a piece of paper with everyone he recommended circled on there and told me to take that with me and use it to vote.’
This is reprehensible on so many levels. It is an abuse of power. A doctor should not be engaging in political discourse with a patient, unless discussion is initiated by the patient. When the patient commented about his behavior with his staff, they confirmed, “During the whole election season, he goes crazy every single time.”
When the newspaper inquired with the Florida Board of Medicine, a division of the Florida Department of Health, they responded by email, “This behavior would not violate any of the laws or rules regulating the practice of medicine.”
In contrast, Celia B. Fisher, an expert on medical ethics at Fordham University in New York said his actions were not acceptable:
Fisher, the Marie Ward Doty University Chair in Ethics, said the actions violate ethical norms in multiple ways. She said using appointment time for political advocacy constitutes a ‘boundary violation,’ in which the doctor misuses his role.
Fisher said politicking during appointments could also be considered a conflict of interest, coercion of patients and exercise of undue influence. She noted that a patient is a ‘captive audience’ in the doctor’s office.
Another patient of the doctor’s had a similar experience. He gave her an “information packet, of 10- or 15- page collection of essays expressing his opinions on political issues.”
I know that other people in positions of power promote politics: rabbis, priests, and teachers are known to include political statements in their rhetoric; these actions are also inappropriate and an abuse of power. But a medical doctor speaking politics with a patient in his office—it’s simply unacceptable.
And a Republican, no less.
Published in Politics
This is actually worthy of a post in and of itself, but I don’t have the time or the inclination.
My good friend’s youngest daughter has been suffering a few minor complaints, but because of family history, there’s a chance it could be something more serious. (there’s really no treatment for the more serious malady, so there’s no big danger in her not seeking treatment)
She refuses to go to the doctor because every time she goes she get’s a lecture about getting on birth control. (she’s recently married and is using NFP). Zero respect for her personal choices.
Which reminds me of all my friends who had to suffer pediatricians trying to give their daughter’s the Gardisal vaccine. (My daughter’s pediatrician was a Catholic. He brought it up, I said no. That was that)
I’m glad you find my combative demeanor fun to spar with!
As to your accepted standard of behavior, I think its important to note than in many ways*, our society as a whole is lacking in a standard of acceptable conduct.
Until we reform one, I find it a bit of one-way theater to censor (or sanction) others who choose to operate in the void (for whatever personal reasons they might have). In the mean time, take it on a personal level, changing minds as you go. Perhaps eventually we will reform a standard code of conduct. Right now, though, it makes no sense to hold people to standards that simply do not exist.
*not all ways.
I think some of what disturbs a patient about a doctor relates to the doctor’s physical mannerisms. It is hard to know exactly what this patient went through as a description of a verbal diatribe leaves out many other factors. Was there always a smirk or sneer on the doctor’s face? Was there any feeling of being welcome for their being the doctor’s patient?
Some doctors emanate warmth and compassionate. Others are more clinical. But some doctors are down right nasty in their mannerisms. I would rather have a clinical-style personality who is an expert diagnostics person treat me for my condition than a bubbly and warm ignoramus. However, I won’t endure rude behavior. After all, I am not only a patient: I am also the one that sees the doctor is making a living, regardless if I self pay or have my Insurer pay them.
I asked my doctor if he was going to ask about guns in the house. His answer was “No.”
No she should not. Did she tell the doctor to stop, he was upsetting her?
The doc was wrong.
I’ll just note the timing of the article, on which the OP is base. Two days into the Democrats trying to steal the Florida election, we get a “news” article about the evil Republicans in Florida. And the evil Republican is a doctor, so obviously we need Medicare For All.
There’s an anti-Trump article in there too. Having said that, a doctor did this to me too when I was pregnant and I did not appreciate it. BUT the incidents of liberals politicizing everything and proselytizing far outnumber the other way around.
I’m all for embracing the power of and.
This instance, if true, is wrong, and the timing of the article, and its Florida source, are highly politically suspect, and leftists do this in every public and private space, at all times.
Assuming this happened as described – which is already a serious effort – Fordham University Professor expert on medical ethics Celia B. Fisher is in charge of roughly nothing, and can issue nonbinding opinions at will while the Florida Department of Health has to deal with laws and bylaws as written.
I repudiate the actions of the doctor (assuming), but defend the FDH until such time as we find they are violating their whatever the plural of charters is.
The government took over and is micromanaging medical care, and is requiring health insurance (or soon will be requiring again) as well as setting mandatory coverages, and warping the industry by allowing employers to offer set health insurance rates and plans in return for tax deductions, but doctors can’t talk about it with patients? Meanwhile abortion is considered ethical?
And offering guardacil, a vaccine which has little utility and controls an infection that is socially acquired and is caused by considered consensual behavior is mandated by governments, and at the very least the question must be broached and the offer for the vaccination made.
And yet doctors can’t bring up the topic with his patients? This is what ethics has come to?
Who made up these rules?
@susanquinn, my comment relied on the third definition of ethics you posted — rules of professional conduct. These are normally a formal system because the violation of them is relied upon by a licensing body to withdraw a property right granted when the license was issued. In this context “ethics” is a real thing. And while in a Venn diagram there is overlap between what many would view as morality, there are deviations that reflect a need to be as objective as possible.
I suspect that the term “ethics” is distinct from “morality” because morality has a religious base, while ethics has a decidedly secular base. A society’s ethics are more cohesive than its morality precisely because the society need not be theocratic.
That is why the Islamic doctrine of taqqiya is disturbing in America. There is a lot a doctrinal diversity in America from snake handlers, crystal worshippers, mass attenders, synagogue worshippers, and big box church celebrators. But they all hold honesty as a societal ethic. It is baked into our civic and commercial laws and practice even where not appearing in our criminal codes.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, @rodin. Now that I’ve reflected over the Sabbath, I think I would be hard pressed to say that the doctor committed an ethical violation. I’m in alignment, however, with those who said that his actions were very inappropriate.
I think the distinction you make between ethics and morals is correct and it is easier for people to agree on ethics than morals. The only question I would have is your comment that I put in bold face. Unfortunately we supposedly espouse honesty as an ethic we all agree to, except that Islam does permit lying to protect the religion. I think, however, that our commitment to honesty has been severely weakened. I don’t want to get sidetracked, but so many brush off the lies that Trump has made because he has accomplished so much. I am very glad about his successes, the improving economy, the reduction of regulations, dismissing the Iran agreement and all the other accomplishments. But the fact is, Trump does tell lies. As do many in politics.
Yes, AND the Washington Post called President Trump possibly the most honest President in history—in the specific sense that he keeps his campaign promises. He feels free to lie, embellish, hype, as needed, within his brand of negotiating. But campaign promises are politically sacred to him.
True. And I am grateful for that commitment.