Saturday, August 20, 2005
TSBME holds certain doctors accountable
Attached is a Texas case decided this week that illustrates the gap between professional medical due process and protection that is given (however inadequately even there) in other contexts:
Discipline may be based on alleged conduct from decades earlier.
Broad language accusations of “unprofessional conduct” will support a disciplinary action.
Only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard is required to punish.
The court did reject some gratuitous and unsupported language by the Board attacking the doctor.
What I read into this case is that the hospital saved misconduct from the early 80’s to use against the doctor when it became expedient. This is a traditional type of power abuse. If the rules are so ambiguous they way mean anything, misconduct is not an act to be sanctioned in a certain manner, but instead becomes a hammer to hold over the offender to control dissent.
Discipline may be based on alleged conduct from decades earlier.
Broad language accusations of “unprofessional conduct” will support a disciplinary action.
Only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard is required to punish.
The court did reject some gratuitous and unsupported language by the Board attacking the doctor.
What I read into this case is that the hospital saved misconduct from the early 80’s to use against the doctor when it became expedient. This is a traditional type of power abuse. If the rules are so ambiguous they way mean anything, misconduct is not an act to be sanctioned in a certain manner, but instead becomes a hammer to hold over the offender to control dissent.
// posted by texas shammed @ 6:45 PM 
