A fascinating whistleblower case just wrapped up in a small town in Texas where few health care professionals practice. Anne Mitchell, with the assistance of another nurse, drafted an anonymous letter to the state medical board calling for investigation of a doctor who they worked with and who they alleged was involved in misconduct. Via the NYT, a later investigation by a state agency supported the concerns the nurses raised.
Unsurprisingly, the nurses were fired for writing the letter. (I’m not surprised, sadly, because despite whistleblower protection laws, those who report wrongdoing often face ostracism, ruined careers, and severe depression). What was surprising was that the sheriff in the town (who credited the doctor with saving his life from a heart attack), hunted down the letter on Mitchell’s work computer. Mitchell was then prosecuted for misuse of information, a felony that carried a potential ten year sentence. The outcome yesterday was that the jury acquitted Mitchell after deliberating for less than an hour.
For a long time I’ve noticed that whistleblower cases have a tendency to portray the whistleblower as a hero (standing up for the public interest!) or as a snitch (who would know these details unless also personally involved in the misconduct?) While these cases are often characterized by this all-or-nothing portrayal, often there are instances of true moral ambiguity. Because whistleblowers gain protection when they are looking out for the public interest, there is room to debate what exactly the "public interest" entails. In Henrik Ibsen's Enemy of the People, the townspeople depend on the income from a public bath that supposedly has healing properties. The protagonist, Dr. Stockmann, realizes that the waters are actually polluted, and the tourists could become ill. When he makes the fact known, he is reviled and practically run out of town on a rail. There, the question was whether the public interest in economic development was greater than the health risk? Or, in Mitchell's case, is the public interest in having *some* doctor in an under-served community greater than patient safety? And who gets to decide?
So, what did we learn here? 1) Whistleblower cases are filled with drama and drama can be written about whistleblowers; 2) Often whistleblowers aren't treated well (er, understatement); 3) If you are a nurse writing an anonymous complaint about a doctor who saved the town sheriff, and don’t want to be fired or jailed, don’t write the letter from your work computer.
Thanks to Ronna Schneider (UC) for the pointer.
Comments