Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Rand Paul’

I’m giving Rand Paul a tiny slice of “the benefit of the doubt” – Temporarily!

15 Jun 2010 8 comments

I first saw the story about Rand Paul NOT being “board certified” in Ophthalmology in the Huffington Post today.  And although I would like to credit the person who I saw that Tweeted the link, I searched Twitter and there were far too many (1,000s) of mentions for me to track down where I saw it.

I’m blogging because Keith Olbermann covered it today on the “It’s Tea Time” segment on Countdown, but I think he left out a (potentially) important part of the story.  Read the Huffington Post Story (linked above) and watch this clip:

Clip? What Clip? I tried 5 or 6 different ways to get the MSNBC clip into this post – all unsuccessful – so I’m just going to give a quick description:

Keith made good points about both Rand Paul and what’s her name (the GOP nominee for Senate in Nevada) lying. It’s all of 105 seconds. And it’s his regular “It’s Tea Time” segment wherein he points out various inanities of the Tea Party.

Wait! Brainstorm! MSNBC will let me “share” the segment through email – via a custom link. So try this link to see the segment. And sorry about the Flash and the Ad – that’s MSBC’s doing, not mine!

While the Huffington Post story was generally critical of Dr. Paul, it did present his side of the story: That although he isn’t certified by the “Board” that is recognized by the AMA (the American Board of Ophthalmology – aka ABO), he feels that he has good reasons – and that he IS certified by an alternative board (which he helped found) – the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO). The reason he gives for the switch – and for his support of the NBO – is that the ABO adopted re-certification requirements – and at the time of adoption, the ABO exempted all currently “certified” ophthalmologists from the re-certification. He argues that creates 2 entirely separate classes of ABO “certified” ophthalmologists – those certified but exempt – the older doctors – who can claim to be certified but aren’t required to re-certify, and the younger “certified” ophthalmologists who have to re-certify every 10 years.

I think Keith missed a potentially much larger story by focusing only on Dr. Paul not being ABO certified.

Before I outline it, you must know that I’m no fan of Dr. Paul. As with all fundamentalist Libertarians, the ideas he espouses may seem reasonable on the surface, but once you dig down to the policy implications they become abhorrent.  So this is not a defense of Dr. Paul.

So what’s the larger story? IMHO it’s the lack of third party oversight of many professional associations – in general those associations that “certify” their practitioners with the tacit blessing of government – and in particular, the lack of third party oversight of the Medical profession.

What does “board certified” really mean? In the medical profession, it means that you have passed a process (which usually includes testing but often does NOT include outcome reviews) administered by your peers. In some cases, it doesn’t even mean that! When medical boards first appeared, existing practitioners were exempt and declared “board certified” with no process or testing.  However, as the original grandfathered practitioners are now mostly retired (I hope) – effectively “board certified” means you’ve been through the process ONCE. You might be young enough to be required to re-certify, but there’s no distinction that a member of the public can discern.

The older the doctor I see, the MORE I want her to be periodically tested and peer reviewed – but the medical boards have insured that these doctors – who may be showing symptoms of age related loss of memory and reasoning ability – don’t have to re-certify!

That’s the story that I think Keith should have pursued – the medical application of:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

and it’s far too involved to be part of his “Tea Time” segments. But he could have – at least – given a few sentences to Dr. Paul’s story – and promised to report more fully on it “soon”. That he chose to go with only the sensational “Rand Paul Lied” is, frankly, a disappointment.

Am I certain of all I’ve related above? Not in the details. I’m not a medical professional (although I was a Paramedic in my younger days). I have read and heard enough to know the general outlines of self-regulating medical professionals – and to not trust it.

Am I going to dig deeper? No. I’m sorry but I just don’t have the time.  Am I going to give Dr. Paul a real benefit of the doubt? Not unless someone ELSE I trust digs into the NBO enough to show that, although founded in part by Dr. Paul, it is a genuine, standards based and peer reviewed, third party certification with no grandfathering – of anything!

Finally, before you post comments like: “Keith is a commentator, not a reporter.” or “Keith can’t go into that kind of depth – it’s not his bag.” Yes – you’re right. But given the current media deluge, and my lack of time to see/hear/read everything that I think would be worth seeing, hearing and reading, I have to pick my sources. After this, Keith’s short segments will mean less to me.

Thanks,

Steve

Advertisements