Dr. John A. King, a 49 year old osteopathic physician who has practiced in at least nine different states, is in trouble again.
The Charleston Gazette reports that King, who has "dozens" of pending malpractice cases against him in West Virginia, is now accused of overdosing two Alabama patients with pre-surgical sedatives, putting one of them into a 26 hour coma. Since 2004 King has lost or surrendered his license in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virgina and West Virginia. Now the Alabama Board of Medicine is trying to revoke his Alabama license.
What struck me in this gruesome story was this brief comment: "[in 2006] the Alabama board fined King $2,500 and ordered him to complete a medical ethics course..."
Mandating an ethics class was not an unusual step. Miscreants are often directed to take ethics classes. What can a board imagine this will accomplish? There are three alternative rationales - cynicism, optimism, and magic.
The cynical rationale: Ordering an ethics course is a way of appearing to do something, and a justification for not undertaking meaningful action, like removing a license, which could lead to litigation.
The optimistic rationale: The miscreant means to do the right thing. An ethics course that points the way will correct erroneous beliefs and bring about reform. This was the rationale behind 19th century penitentiaries and mental asylums - convicted criminals and the mentally ill would be reformed by contemplation of scripture.
The magical rationale: Like divine intervention, the ethics class will pierce the miscreant's evil self and bring about transformation.
I have seen situations in which physicians who received many complaints about their interactions with patients changed the trajectory of their careers after communication skill training. But in a situation like that of Dr. King, with (literally) hundreds of serious allegations against him, cynicism is the most plausible explanation for referral to ethics study as an appropriate resolution.
The serious ethical issue here is failure on the part of the medical profession to follow through on its commitment to self-regulation. "Sentencing" physicians who have committed serious breaches of responsibility to ethics courses is an insult to patients and the public.
The Charleston Gazette reports that King, who has "dozens" of pending malpractice cases against him in West Virginia, is now accused of overdosing two Alabama patients with pre-surgical sedatives, putting one of them into a 26 hour coma. Since 2004 King has lost or surrendered his license in Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virgina and West Virginia. Now the Alabama Board of Medicine is trying to revoke his Alabama license.
What struck me in this gruesome story was this brief comment: "[in 2006] the Alabama board fined King $2,500 and ordered him to complete a medical ethics course..."
Mandating an ethics class was not an unusual step. Miscreants are often directed to take ethics classes. What can a board imagine this will accomplish? There are three alternative rationales - cynicism, optimism, and magic.
The cynical rationale: Ordering an ethics course is a way of appearing to do something, and a justification for not undertaking meaningful action, like removing a license, which could lead to litigation.
The optimistic rationale: The miscreant means to do the right thing. An ethics course that points the way will correct erroneous beliefs and bring about reform. This was the rationale behind 19th century penitentiaries and mental asylums - convicted criminals and the mentally ill would be reformed by contemplation of scripture.
The magical rationale: Like divine intervention, the ethics class will pierce the miscreant's evil self and bring about transformation.
I have seen situations in which physicians who received many complaints about their interactions with patients changed the trajectory of their careers after communication skill training. But in a situation like that of Dr. King, with (literally) hundreds of serious allegations against him, cynicism is the most plausible explanation for referral to ethics study as an appropriate resolution.
The serious ethical issue here is failure on the part of the medical profession to follow through on its commitment to self-regulation. "Sentencing" physicians who have committed serious breaches of responsibility to ethics courses is an insult to patients and the public.
0 comments:
Post a Comment