Neutrality Is Dangerous in the Face of Medical Misinformation
— Professional accountability can ensure expertise is used for public good
by Katie Suleta, DHSc, MPH, MS, and Aimee Pugh Bernard, PhD
https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/120179
EXTRACTS
'We recently wrote about the importance of making science communication a core competency in medical education. Physicians need the skills to read, interpret, critique, and clearly discuss research and complex clinical information with patients. Equally essential is recognizing that when physicians share misinformation, it can have dire consequences...
'Some potential approaches include:
- Standardized professional guidelines for public communication. Create or strengthen specialty-specific guidelines outlining what constitutes responsible public health communication, especially on social media, podcasts, or public talks. These guidelines should clarify expectations around evidence- based claims, citing data responsibly, and avoiding speculation presented as fact.
- Graduated professional consequences. Licensing boards and professional societies could adopt tiered consequences, ranging from formal warnings and mandatory educational modules to suspension of membership or privileges for repeated, harmful misinformation. This mirrors existing structures used for ethics violations or unsafe clinical practices.
- Mandatory continuing medical education (CME) on science communication. Require periodic CME training focused on communicating uncertainty, interpreting evidence, navigating misinformation, and understanding one's influence as a licensed professional.
- Transparency and correction expectations. Encourage policies where healthcare professionals who share incorrect or misleading information must issue transparent corrections within a defined timeframe. This aligns with journalistic and academic standards and helps restore public trust.
COMMENT (NPW): I agree these kinds of measures need to be considered. The authors include a public health researcher with the American Council on Science and Health and Associate Professor, Immunology & Microbiology at the University of Colorado. The web page includes several responses to the article, many of which say that some of the approaches are against the US Constitution First Amendment (which includes freedom of speech). I would ask: To what extent does the First Amendment allow physicians and others to speak untruths that result in other people's disease and death? To what extent should policymakers be held accountable for implementing policies that result in excess deaths?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org