There’s a heated debate in Oregon about a new ethics rule proposed by the Oregon Medical Board.
The rule would make it mandatory for doctors to report “microaggressions,” which are subtle or indirect actions or comments that reflect negative attitudes about a non-majority group.
Critics argue that this rule is too vague and threatens free speech.
What are Microaggressions?
Microaggressions are small actions or comments that can be seen as insulting or discriminatory, even if they’re not intended that way. For example, saying “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough” can be considered a microaggression.
The New Rule
The new rule from the Oregon Medical Board would include microaggressions under “unprofessional conduct.” This means doctors could lose their licenses for such behavior. The rule states:
“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”
This puts microaggressions on the same level as serious offenses like fraud and sexual assault.
Concerns About Free Speech
Critics worry that the rule is too ambiguous and could have a chilling effect on free speech. Doctors might be unsure about what counts as a microaggression and could avoid saying anything that might be interpreted that way. This vagueness could lead to excessive self-censorship.
Reporting Requirements
The rule also requires doctors to report their colleagues if they notice any behavior that might be considered unprofessional, including microaggressions. If they don’t report such behavior, they could face discipline themselves.
Impact on Medical Practice
Some believe that this rule goes against the principle of “do no harm,” which is a fundamental part of medical ethics. They argue that it turns doctors into enforcers of vague social norms rather than focusing on patient care.
The new rule by the Oregon Medical Board is controversial because it includes microaggressions as unprofessional conduct and requires mandatory reporting by doctors. Critics argue that the rule is too vague and poses a threat to free speech. They believe the rule should be revised or removed to avoid turning doctors into social enforcers and to protect free speech in medical practice.