A good ethical question is whether licensed mental health professionals & MDs tweeting advice without full explanation, context, or supporting data is appropriate in respect to hippocratic oaths.

Meaning not that the info shared is inherently wrong, it’s simply incomplete, which can inadvertently cause wrong.

Happens a lot where slivers of partial knowledge tweeted casually (with good intent) hang unsupported or incomplete leaving conclusions haphazardly open to public interpretation/extrapolation.

If a half-baked tweet helps (doesn’t hurt) 100 people but harms or misguides 10 (by misunderstanding alone) is the tweet justifiably appropriate, or is the inclusion of any harm at all breaking fundamental hippocratic oaths.

How could we even measure/identify the occurrence of this harm? We likely cant.

I don’t have an answer, only concern.

With great power comes great responsibility, including the need for context and completeness.

Public opinions and advice is different (no oath involved).

Interesting wild-west times we live in 🙃

Of course, mental health professionals have no oath but arguably would still apply ethically

Read Also:

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *