Home / Medical Ethics / Anonymous Physician Blogging: Unethical or Important Check and Balance?

Anonymous Physician Blogging: Unethical or Important Check and Balance?

By Birdstrike M.D.

 

Don’t ask me nothin’ about nothin’,

I just might tell you the truth.” – Bob Dylan

 

I just read an interesting post by Jennifer Gunter M.D. on KevinMD.com. Apparently, the entirety of what we are doing here at DrWhitecoat.com, and on internet communities and blogs like Student Doctor Network and Sermo, is unethical, according to the General Medical Council in Britain. How dare we not use our real names on social media as physicians and physicians-in-training?

According to the British General Medical Council,

“If you identify yourself as a doctor in publicly accessible social media, you should also identify yourself by name.”

Otherwise, if you don’t, what you are doing is wrong, and unethical.  Really?  On one hand, I agree that any physician that posts publicly should post with the assumption that their identity could easily be discovered, if desired. Therefore, never post anything anonymously that you couldn’t live with, if your name ever ended up being attached to it. We shouldn’t be mocking patients, using profanity, or blogging like drunken sailors. Also, patient cases need to be devoid of all identifying information (18 HIPPAA identifiers) or even fictionalized to the extent that no patient could ever read a post and say, “That was me!” (For this reason, anything I post that resembles a “patient case,” if inspired by real events, has all of those factors deleted or changed so drastically, that the final product bears almost no resemblance to the inspiring event. The “facts” are drastically altered to the level of fiction, without altering the essential “truth,” hence the disclaimer, at the bottom of my posts.)

Dr. Gunter, in her post, links to another blog with some very good points by Christopher McCann, where the need for some level of anonymity is essential for the needed role of whistleblowers. Just think of how many medical disasters, scandals and ethical horrors that could have been exposed or stopped if internet social media had existed in the past with the ability to retain a vague hope of at least temporary anonymity.  I think an outright ban on physicians posting under pseudonyms in the names of “ethics,” creates a chilling effect against speaking out against policies and procedures that may be harmful and unethical themselves.  Such a policy itself is an unethical policy, in my opinion.  In short, it suppresses free speech.  There are plenty of people in positions of great money and power, with a vested interest in enforcing such a chilling effect on free speech.

“Don’t dare question, that which you see. Don’t rock the boat. Get in line ‘little soldier’. Don’t get in the way of our immensely profitable status quo.”

Because one has a famous “real” name doesn’t make what he says, “Fact.” Just think of how much medical dogma in history, that has caused irreparable harm and was promoted proudly, authoritatively, and unquestionably by big “names” without basis in fact or evidence: bleeding patients with leeches, tapeworms for weight loss, lobotomies, smoking to treat asthma, heroin prescribed for the common cold in children, using mercury to treat syphilis, all the way to modern day unnecessary surgeries. How could I forget the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, conducted by the US Public Health Service itself, where 600 African American men were allowed to rot with syphilis, and were never offered the cure when penicillin was invented? These were all treatments that were accepted by the medical community at the time and touted by doctors who weren’t afraid to use their “real” names.  Perhaps they should have been afraid, and perhaps if there had been an open and unsuppressed internet to facilitate blowing the whistle on some of these harmful and misguided treatments, many lives could have been saved.

I see more truth written by some supposed cowards that post under pseudonyms, than some of the “unquestionable” dogma spoken by those who are propped up by proudly displayed titles and names. What about the chilling effect on doctors afraid to speak out against patient satisfaction policies which are associated with higher death rates, due to fears of losing their job? What about doctors afraid to speak out about being pressured to admit patients unnecessarily and defraud Medicare, due to fears of losing their jobs?  What about the chilling effect on physician researchers who already don’t speak out enough about purposely suppressed clinical trial data which has led to dangerous medications being approved prematurely?

Perhaps anonymous and pseudonymous reporting amongst physicians on internet social media plays an important role as a check and balance on the Medical field as a whole, which has a dismal track record when it comes to self-policing in regards to ethical lapses and dangerous missteps.

Is what we are doing here unethical and wrong, posting with pseudonyms? Need we change our screen names to our real names now, to comply with this supposed emerging ethical standard?  I think not.  Tell me what you think….

5 comments

  1. A medical researcher I know who writes extensively on the net on a variety of subjects uses a pseudonym. It’s not because he is hiding a secret, indeed, his colleagues, patients and (human) research subjects know about his pseudonym. I don’t think he’s told his lab rats. :-)

    It’s simply so that when someone googles him by his real name, presumably looking for his research, they aren’t confused by his writings on other subjects. Google under his real name, you get patents, publications in journals, and websites associated with his two sponsoring universities. Google under his pseudonym, you get his writings on things not associated with his day job.

  2. 1. The UK is not the US and I think our culture is more lacking in the ability to sustain civil public discourse (for proof, just read the comments section of any current news article. We are also a far more litigious society which puts a damper on any desire to use one’s real identity on-line.
    2. What is so special about being a doctor? What about lawyers? teachers? day traders? journalists? Shouldn’t everyone have a choice to protect his/her privacy and or identity? Of course, this applies to criminals, Neo Nazis, etc. as well because that is what our country is all about—freedom–even if it sometimes makes our stomachs turn.
    3. Authors use pseudonyms all the time and no one ever seems to think that is a problem.

    • #2-Agree. And it would refer to you commenting anonymously, also. What are you “hiding” by using a pseudonym? Shouldn’t you post your “real” name? We saw this for years, with residents being forced to work shifts sometimes up to 36 hours straight without sleep, at risk to fall asleep at the wheel on the drive home, afraid to speak out for fear of punishment from their programs.

      Why the need for the culture of silence?

    • Lawyers, teachers, day traders, journalists all can get fired from a job one day and start working for a competitor the following day.
      Doctors, on the other hand, have to go through a several month long credentialing process to get on staff at a hospital. That’s several months without an income which does not occur with everyone else.

  3. I will post under my real name when those desiring it first post their medical, legal, and financial particulars online in public.

    Then they’ll have to run it by a literary council composed of Galileo, who put his arguments regarding heliocentricity in the mouths of fictional characters, and Benjamin Franklin, regular editorial contributor to his brother’s newspaper as “Silence Dogood”.

    Actually let’s just stipulate that anyone in any profession so bereft of common sense and any barest appreciation for the medico-legal heritage of free speech in Western civilization ought to be horsewhipped in public until they become unconscious, daily, for a week, have their academic credentials and licenses stripped from them, and be forced to repeat their undergraduate liberal arts classes with a grade of B or better before their restoration.

    What utter idiotic tools.
    But then, this was the people who gave society socialized medicine and death panels, so clearly being able to hurl brickbats and rubble at their idiocy is seen by them as being double plus ungood.
    If George Orwell were alive today, he’d have shot them in the face. Or at least a kneecap.

Leave a Reply to tarl Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*