Docs should avoid politics

The following editorial appeared Friday in the Walla Walla Union Bulletin.

Politics and medicine don’t mix — or, at least, they shouldn’t be mixed.

Yet, a few doctors around the state have brought a political campaign into their medical offices. Some doctors have asked patients to sign petitions for Initiative 330, which would cap pain and suffering awards in malpractice lawsuits at (as high as) $1,050,000.

When people go to the doctor it’s often because they are sick. They aren’t in the mood to talk politics. Putting political pressure on patients can make them feel uncomfortable.

But what a Richland obstetrician did made one patient feel more than uncomfortable, it made her feel downright angry. Frankly, she has good reason to be angry — if not outraged.

Dr. Mark E. Mulholland told patient Jamie Chavez to find another doctor after she disagreed with him on the initiative. Chavez, a special-education teacher who is pregnant, had been a patient of Mulholland for three years.

Chavez has filed a complaint with a state disciplinary board. “He needs to be reprimanded … a scolding, or whatever. He needs to be spoken to,” Chavez said. “You don’t have the right (to say), ‘If you sign the referendum, I’ll deliver your baby.’ “

We’re with Chavez on that. If doctors have a political litmus test for their patients, it is going to negatively impact patient care. The focus of a visit to a doctor should be the patient’s medical condition and health needs, not the doctor’s political views.

Mulholland, however, doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong. He said he put petitions throughout his office complex. He said he spent about seven hours a week lobbying patients and asked every patient to sign the petition.

Chavez “basically expressed that people ought to be able to sue for everything they can,” Mulholland said, “and that is just so philosophically different than how I feel, I didn’t want to continue the doctor-patient relationship.”

This is exactly why doctors and patients shouldn’t have political discussions. Mulholland didn’t need to know his patients’ views nor did she need to know his. All that is important in the doctor-patient relationship is medical and health issues.

We understand that doctors — like lawyers — have strong views on tort reform. It would be equally wrong for lawyers to have a political litmus test for their clients.

Putting a petition in an office that passively seeks signatures isn’t necessarily a problem.

But when lobbying spurs political debate — and acrimony — it’s wrong. Mulholland went too far.