Dr. Scott Jensen, MD, serves as a Minnesota State Senator. Elected in 2016, Sen. Jensen will be voluntarily vacating his seat at the end of 2020, when this term ends. (To be clear, the story below about Sen. Jensen is unrelated to his decision not to run for re-election.)
State Senators are, by position and nature, folks who speak out on issues. For Sen. Jensen, this especially means speaking out on public issues that affect the legislative processes. As a physician, Dr. Jensen feels compelled to speak out on issues regarding health care.
It cannot be surprising to anyone that Senator Doctor Jensen spoke out, and continues to do so, on issues related to SARS CoV2 (also called COVID-19). Dr. Jensen saw bad science used by politicians and political activists to justify bad public policy and to advance a political bias. So he spoke out, about the virus, masks, lock downs, distancing, effective medicines and more. He has appeared on numerous national and local radio and TV programs, explaining the science and politics of COVID-19.
During the past several weeks, Dr. Jensen received notice from the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice that formal complaints had been filed against him. These anonymous complains allege Dr. Jensen is potentially harming public health because he has publicly disagreed with the accepted “science” of the moment. The thinking goes that folks who are not physicians or public health experts might become ill and die because of what Dr. Jensen says – though it is rooted in science and not politics.
As a State Senator, his constituents expect Jensen to challenge the politics of public health – especially when those politics results in the shutdown of the economy and stripping people of their rights. If Sen. Jensen fails to question the politics of COVID-19, he fails his duty as a Senator.
Sorting out the science and speaking out about COVID-19 politics has landed Dr. Jensen in professional hot water. It is likely he will surface intact, but not without scars, and this is simply wrong.
The Chilling Effect
Recently, I contacted several physicians I know and asked them to consider joining a public relations effort concerning health care reform. The P.R. effort promotes private market health care. It stands in opposition to the leftward drift toward single payer health care, now so popular with many Americans.
Physicians are likely the most trusted of all professionals, and when they offer advice at the very least, we listen – even if we don’t always follow it. The idea of the P.R. campaign is that doctors will educate the public about the virtues of private health care and this will affect how we vote. Instead of voting for candidates who support Big Government health plans – Medicare for All, Public Options, Single Payer – voters would choose candidates who favor private medicine.
One physician said no, he could not do it and put his practice in jeopardy. He feared retaliation from government regulators, just as Dr. (Senator) Scott Jensen has suffered. Others told me they do not want to get involved in public political debate as they fear it will put their practice at risk. I don’t blame them for their hesitation nor their decision not to join the P.R. effort.
Fear. Fear is a strong motivator. Fear of being harassed by a government regulator robs physicians of the freedom to speak out about medical science and politics. These physicians will take great care of their own patients, as long as they continue in practice. Unfortunately, millions of patients and tens of millions of citizens will suffer from politically-driven medicine.
Several weeks ago, some agenda-driven political pundit wrote about the “discredited and dangerous treatment with hydroxychloroquine” that no doctor anywhere would prescribe. I told him I knew many doctors who regularly prescribe it. He challenged me to produce one who would publicly so state. But fear of persecution has reigned in such public support by physicians for this very effective treatment (used in the right way at the right time). Patients suffer because physicians are fearful, not of hurting patients but of having their reputation and practice destroyed.
One physician who responded to my request to speak out said it’s too late – private, independent practice medicine has already lost the argument. As his generation of physicians retire, he suggests, so will independent medical practice.
In my humble opinion, what America needs are more doctors like Scott Jensen, M.D., who run for political office, and then speak out about medical science, and do so without fear. Their only legitimate calculus should be how voters will view their decisions, But the physician legislator should never have to fear regulators who try to shut down legitimate public commentary. Unfortunately, when this happened to Scott Jensen (and he is not the first to be censored for publicly speaking truth) it also chilled the speech of many other physicians who would otherwise speak out.
We will all suffer from one-sided, politically-driven speech that targets truth-tellers who violate the experts’ lines in the sand.
