Article Text

Download PDFPDF
If it ducks like a quack: balancing physician freedom of expression and the public interest
  1. Jacob M Appel
  1. Psychiatry and Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jacob M Appel, Psychiatry and Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA; jacobmappel{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Physicians expressing opinions on medical matters that run contrary to the consensus of experts pose a challenge to licensing bodies and regulatory authorities. While the right to express contrarian views feeds a robust marketplace of ideas that is essential for scientific progress, physicians advocating ineffective or dangerous cures, or actively opposing public health measures, pose a grave threat to societal welfare. Increasingly, a distinction has been made between professional speech that occurs during the physician-patient encounter and public speech that transpires beyond the clinical setting, with physicians being afforded wide latitude to voice empirically false claims outside the context of patient care. This paper argues that such a bifurcated model does not sufficiently address the challenges of an age when mass communications and social media allow dissenting physicians to offer misleading medical advice to the general public on a mass scale. Instead, a three-tiered model that distinguishes between citizen speech, physician speech and clinical speech would best serve authorities when regulating physician expression.

  • health personnel
  • health workforce
  • professional misconduct
  • regulation
  • rights

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors JMA is the sole author of this paper and is responsible for all of its contents.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Other content recommended for you