Ethical?

The New York Times runs a column in their Sunday Magazine called "The Ethicist".  I like the column, but this Sunday the writer, Mr Randy Cohen, slipped a cog.  The title was "Disheartening Talk", a clever play on words.

Here is the gist of the problem, as presented to the reader:

While preparing to give me a stress test, a technician checked my resting heart rate.  I could see the EKG and hear my heart in action.  As I was wired up and moved to the treadmill, the technician said that she was fascinated with the heart, had studied it and knew that “there is no way it came from an ape.”  Then she added, “Only divine creation could have created such an organ.”  I didn’t want to hear her religious views, but I felt vulnerable, because I was having a test performed in a doctor’s office, and said nothing.  Should I speak to her boss? P.W., PASADENA, CALIF.

Then follows the response.  The first paragraph went pretty well:

You should.  It is important not to inhibit free expression; it is also important not to discourage people from seeking medical care.  At a health care facility, the social good of medical care takes precedence.

That said, in parts of this broad nation the comments of the technician would have been seen by most of the people as smoothing chatter and accepted as such.  However, it is Pasadena.

It is the second paragraph that raises questions in my mind.

This medical professional should not declaim her nonsensical beliefs about cardiovascular design when doing so can undermine a patient’s confidence in the quality of care she is receiving.  Even if the technician confines her theological conjecture to nonmedical topics — oh, say, the biblical injunction to put to death those who work on the Sabbath — some people, particularly when they are a captive audience, may not wish to hear them; you certainly did not.  A sensitive practitioner — a sensitive person — will be guided by the listener’s response: cringing, fascination or something in between.

I get the "some people, particularly when they are a captive audience" bit, but why the "Snark infested waters"?♠  While I don't subscribe to the technician's view of the heart, I think this strident put-down ("nonsensical") shows a decided lack of courtesy toward someone who might well have been only trying to help someone taking their first stress test.

I remember my first stress test.  It was a voluntary action, based on no medical indications, but as a volunteer in a study.  I was fairly stressed, in that I was playing "you bet your pay check".  If it had gone badly my flying career would have ended right there, and I would have never gotten to fly the F-16 a few years later.

I was disappointed in the form of Mr Cohen's advice, although I agree that the patient, if bothered, should have made that point to the medical facility.

As for the second item in yesterday's column, Mr Cohen is on target and as a taxpayer I am not happy with how this situation evolved.

UPDATE:  Updated the spelling of "clever" to drop a stray "a".  And then updated to put in another quote mark and another bowl egs.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  As in the waters off Cape Canaveral.