If it ducks like a quack: balancing physician freedom of expression and the public interest

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


Physicians expressing opinions on medical matters that run contrary to the consensus of experts pose a challenge to licensing bodies and regulatory authorities. While the right to express contrarian views feeds a robust marketplace of ideas that is essential for scientific progress, physicians advocating ineffective or dangerous cures, or actively opposing public health measures, pose a grave threat to societal welfare. Increasingly, a distinction has been made between professional speech that occurs during the physician-patient encounter and public speech that transpires beyond the clinical setting, with physicians being afforded wide latitude to voice empirically false claims outside the context of patient care. This paper argues that such a bifurcated model does not sufficiently address the challenges of an age when mass communications and social media allow dissenting physicians to offer misleading medical advice to the general public on a mass scale. Instead, a three-tiered model that distinguishes between citizen speech, physician speech and clinical speech would best serve authorities when regulating physician expression.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)430-433
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Issue number7
StatePublished - 1 Jul 2022


  • health personnel
  • health workforce
  • professional misconduct
  • regulation
  • rights


Dive into the research topics of 'If it ducks like a quack: balancing physician freedom of expression and the public interest'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this