A COVID-19 misinformation bill in California, AB 2098, is sparking controversy among doctors. Just passed, the bill will open legal pathways against healthcare workers that spread misinformation to their patients about COVID-19. Some oppose the bill, contending it doesn’t allow for reasonable dissent from consensus, while others dispute this, arguing the bill focuses on considerable deviations from accepted science.
Notably, the bill does not include any provisions for healthcare professionals’ behavior on social media; it only concerns direct provider-to-patient communication.
AB 2098 defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care,” and classifies its spread by physicians as “unprofessional conduct.” Those found guilty of such conduct face a slate of disciplinary possibilities, including fines, license suspensions or revocations, and public reprimands.
“California’s anti-misinformation bill is well intentioned. But it’s a bad idea,” reads a Washington Post headline by health columnist and physician Leana Wen.
“Consider how long it took the CDC to acknowledge that the coronavirus is airborne. Should doctors have been censured for recommending N95 masks before they were accepted as an effective method for reducing virus transmission?” Wen wrote.
Wen argued that many doctors would advise patients to delay getting the booster to time it closer to winter holidays, and some would not recommend boosters for children who have already had the virus. Both pieces of advice go against federal guidance, according to Wen, and would make providers vulnerable to license suspensions or revocations.
“While well-intentioned, this legislation will have a chilling effect on medical practice,” Wen wrote. “Is it really right for physicians to be threatened with suspension or revocation of their license for offering nuanced guidance on a complex issue that is hardly settled by existing science?”
Other doctors, such as David Epstein, a contributor to Physician’s Weekly, assert “there is a misconception that the government is deciding on what is the correct medical information as opposed to the medical community.”
“I do not feel threatened by AB 2098. I do not feel that it limits the autonomy of a physician to practice adequately, concerning the diagnosis, management and prevention of COVID-19,” Epstein wrote. “It really focuses on extreme deviation from scientific standards of care and consensus that are supported by the existing science and experts.”
Epstein argued that the abundance of misinformation surrounding the coronavirus, vaccine and the pandemic has led to unnecessary “morbidities and mortalities.”
“Scientific research is being performed in an attempt to save lives in a compressed period of time, we have to use the evidence that we have at the moment. As evidence builds to support one healthcare precept or an opposing one over time, the medical community pivots,” Epstein wrote. “When someone argues that trying to stem the flow of misinformation in healthcare is somehow unscientific, censorship, against the spirit of physicians’ ability to challenge science or independently practice medicine, and promotes dogma, I have to question their understanding of science.”
|
