Professional Speech

Haupt, Claudia E.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2509458

Cited by 7 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In some instances, though, these statutes contradicted prevailing medical standards. 96 These cases had mixed results. For example, one South Dakota statute required physicians to disclose all “known medical risks” of abortion, but explicitly included “[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide” among the “known” risks.…”

Section: Legislative Limitations On Physician Autonomy In Other Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis

Guevremont¹,

Barnes²,

Haupt³

2018

J. Law. Med. Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The scope and severity of the opioid epidemic in the United States has prompted significant legislative intrusion into the patient-physician relationship. These proscriptive regulatory regimes mirror earlier legislation in other politically-charged domains like abortion and gun regulation. We draw on lessons from those contexts to argue that states should consider integrating their responses to the epidemic with existing medical regulatory structures, making physicians partners rather than adversaries in addressing this public health crisis.

show abstract

Section: Legislative Limitations On Physician Autonomy In Other Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis

Guevremont¹,

Barnes²,

Haupt³

2018

J. Law. Med. Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because, as Claudia Haupt explains, professions are "knowledge communities," meaning that professions are a "network of individuals who share common knowledge and experience as a result of training and practice" and are "engaged in solving similar problems by drawing on a shared reservoir of knowledge, which, at the same time, they help define and to which they contribute." 9 If knowledge upon which a profession builds its foundation is flawed or incorrect, then the profession cannot perform its services to society as intended. This is especially true of the scientifically based professions, like medicine, wherein the foundational knowledge is biologically based science.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although clinician speech on its face is less obvious than speech seen in other more verbally intensive professions, such as the practice of law, when a clinician advises a patient, she is engaging in speech. 9 Viewed through the lens of First Amendment jurisprudence, there are broadly 2 different categories of speech relevant to adjudicating laws and regulations governing clinicians' practices: false speech and professional speech.…”

Section: Government Regulation Of Clinicians In the Speech Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Regulation of Speech (and False Beliefs) in Health Care

Schweikart¹

2018

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

False beliefs in medicine can be regulated by constitutional doctrines of false speech and professional speech, whereby government can restrict professionals' false beliefs or impose its own false beliefs on professionals. In our allegedly "post truth" society, such regulations and their foundations can have an important influence on health care practice. False Beliefs and Health Care There has been a resurgence of false beliefs in American society. These false beliefs range from scientific in nature, such as the "flat-earth" paradigm 1 ; to the politically motivated and influenced, such as the "birther" movement 2 ; to the conspiratorial, such as claims that the moon landings were an elaborate hoax. 3,4 False beliefs have also found their way into health care, sometimes with dire consequences. For example, false beliefs about cures for AIDS have long been problematic 5 ; another example is the anti-vaccine beliefs of Somali and Orthodox Jewish communities to which recent measles outbreaks in Minnesota and Los Angeles have been attributed. 6,7 What happens when health care professionals are sources of false beliefs that influence their practices, patients' care, and public health? How can government regulate clinicians' false beliefs? What if government itself is a source of false belief and compels clinicians to express these beliefs to patients? In this article, I explore these questions from the perspective of American jurisprudence, which, for this issue, is nominally First Amendment constitutional law governing freedom of speech. 8

show abstract

“…Physicians have both ethical and legal obligations to provide patients with information and advice that aligns with professional knowledge. 4 This duty, which arises from the asymmetrical nature of the physician-patient relationship-as physicians have expertise that patients lack-is foundational to the concept of informed consent. As the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated in Canterbury v Spence: "it is normally impossible to obtain a consent worthy of the name unless the physician first elucidates the options and the perils for the patient's edification."…”

Section: Professionalism and Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Holding Clinicians in Public Office Accountable to Professional Standards

Parmet

Haupt

2023

AMA Journal of Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clinicians using governing authority to make public health policy are ethically obliged to draw upon scientific and clinical information that accords with professional standards. Just as the First Amendment does not protect clinicians who provide advice that fails to express standard care, so it does not protect clinician-officials who offer information to the public that a reasonable official would not provide.The American Medical Association designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™ available through the AMA Ed Hub TM . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Clinician-Governor LeadershipEver since Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence, physicians have played an important role in American public life. Many have held elected or appointed positions at the federal, state, or local level. The leadership and expertise of such physicians who guide health agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local boards of health, can be very valuable, especially during a pandemic.Unfortunately, not all physician-officials provide the public with medically sound information and guidance. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, several physicians in public office have made false or misleading statements or have given potentially harmful advice about masking, vaccines, and COVID-related treatments. For example, in 2020, Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist who served as an advisor to then-President Trump, claimed that children cannot transmit SARS-CoV-2. 1 Senator Rand Paul, one of 4 physicians in the Senate in 2021, said that most masks available for purchase over the counter "don't prevent infection." 2 And former Louisiana Congressman Ralph Abraham tweeted in 2020: "Abortions nearly always have a fatal outcome for the baby, and many times it's the same for the mother." 3 We suggest that, with respect to the provision of health-related information and advice, the relationship between physician-officials and the public resembles that between physicians and patients. Building on that analogy, we argue that physician-officials have an ethical duty to offer medically sound information and advice to the public. We also

show abstract

Professional Speech

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis

Constitutional Regulation of Speech (and False Beliefs) in Health Care

Holding Clinicians in Public Office Accountable to Professional Standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About