Blogborygmi has a very thoughtful post up on the speculation surrounding Clinton's recent decortification surgery and pleural effusion. While I'm not convinced that the speculations held forth on Code Blue Blog hold any real water (I think they are an extreme viewpoint), I do like Blogborygmi's comments regarding this case of intense speculation in the blogosphere:
The doctors would have to either admit they goofed in waiting (which would sink them), or admit they're hiding something (which would sink them, their patient, and generate a hundredfold increase in questions), or open up the chart and explain each decision, piece by piece (which could still leave the doctors and Clinton vulnerable to more questions, and would require responsible reporting to avoid headlines like, "Clinton docs were worried about AIDS!" -- and, I should add, this would require a responsible audience).
In short, I wonder if doctors, patients, reporters, or the general public are ready for this level of inquiry and access.
Trial lawyers and police PR have learned to manage the press in high-profile cases. Same with the NTSB after a plane crash. They control the amount and rate of information disclosure, they give some food for thought each day, they steer the conversation while they go about their investigations. CBB and I have more or less assumed that doctors were not playing this game -- that if someone were asking the right questions we'd have a story that made sense.
But maybe the docs are managing the press with the savvy of a PR agent. In the case of Clinton, they're not going to spend one second talking about the chance of HIV or malignancy, even if it's on their differential, even if they're testing for it. From their perspective, it's simply not worth bringing up other options at this point. Better to stay on message and not encourage more questions.
So is this a failure of good reporting? Or have the doctors and patients decided in advance just how much they're going to reveal to journalists? And would more aggressive, educated reporting actually give us more information in these high-profile cases, or would it turn the sources against the media and bloggers alike?
I think the underlying issue here is the medical profession's adherence to patient privacy laws and ethics. Ethically and legally - you simply cannot comment or pursue an investigation into someone's personal health issues the way you can other records. In this case, you won't know precisely what's going on because they are not obligated to tell anyone, and no one can force them too. We are left again with trusting that Clinton's personal physicians have a much better handle on what's going on with their patient than any wild media or blog speculation going on. And I believe that's as it should be - we just have to wait.
Thanks for the link and the kind words. You're right about this Clinton case, it's ultimately a private matter concerning a private citizen.
But there are times when the public has a right to know more details -- such as the death of the Red Sox fan after the police used new crowd-control weapons.
In that case, the press similarly repeated what the hospitals and Boston Police made available, and left a lot of crucial public health questions unanswered. What guidance to laws and ethics give us for this scenario?
Thanks for the link and the kind words. You're right about this Clinton case, it's ultimately a private matter concerning a private citizen.
But there are times when the public has a right to know more details -- such as the death of the Red Sox fan after the police used new crowd-control weapons.
In that case, the press similarly repeated what the hospitals and Boston Police made available, and left a lot of crucial public health questions unanswered. What guidance to laws and ethics give us for this scenario?