Thread by @ABustedBoomer

#fredtrump
Today we are treated to a report in the @NYTimes that the daughters of a deceased podiatrist claim that the diagnosis of bone spurs, provided for a 22 year old @realDonaldTrump , was a quid pro quo by the podiatrist for Trump's dad, #FredTrump.

You see, #FredTrump just happened to be Larry Braunstein's landlord.
No patient files accompany this news story. In fact, no documentation whatever accompanies this news story.

All that there is to the story is the telling of it by two women who weren't present for the diagnosis and have provided no extant medical records (or other records) supporting their claim.

In the world of free-form slander, few publications are above the @NYTimes at the game.

If there were ever an argument against Jefferson's maxim, "better a country with newspapers and no government than a country with a government and no newspapers," the Times is the argument.

In fact, the newspapers was/is such a source of false and misleading information that Jefferson also suggested that newspaper publishers should divide their print editions into four parts: things known to be true; things probably true; things possibly true; things that are lies

Jefferson made those observations in an 1807 letter (while serving as President) to John Norvell. (Letter of Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 11 June 1807).

You can read that letter: founders.archives.gov/documents/Jeff…

Jefferson went on to suggest that, if they did so, the first and second sections of a newspaper would be very small and the remaining two would be the kind of content that pleases small minds to read.

Jefferson went on to say, "the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors."

So, what makes it seem UNLIKELY that these podiatric offspring are telling a story that would appear anywhere except in section three or four of a Jeffersonian newspaper?

Well, for me, it could be a question of ethics. And, in fact, while feet may sometimes stink, it appears that American podiatrists have a fairly decent ethical code that governs their practice of podiatric medicine.

And, if Larry Braunstein was an ethical podiatrist, too many provisions of that code counterindicate what would have to be described as crass and grotesque violations of that code.

Do podiatrists maintain a code of ethics? Well, here's a link to one such code. apma.files.cms-plus.com/2013%20Code%20….

Frankly, since the allegedly false diagnosis of bone spurs was made some 45-50 years ago, there likely have been changes to that code, but this version is freely and readily available and would be the one on which Braunstein's behavior would be judged if it occurred today.

Did Dr. Larry Braunstein violate that code of ethics?

Start with the proposition that a podiatrist is ethically bound not to permit economic benefit to interfere with their primary responsibility for patient care and welfare.

The daughters allege that Braunstein got a sweetheart deal on rent that lasted FOR DECADES on the basis of diagnosing bone spurs in @realdonaldtrump. Sounds like an economic benefit, doesn't it.

And it sounds -- if the daughters are to be believed -- that #daddyfootdoctor provided a FALSE diagnosis for economic benefit.

If that's the case, then the score would be Ethics 0 - Braunstein 1.

What about an ethical obligation to maintain patient confidentiality? Did Larry Braunstein really tell his daughters the private medical information of a patient? If he did, it would seem as though he violated a rule of ethics for podiatrists.

Keeping score? Ethics 0 - Braunstein 2.

A related consideration is the obligation to respect the confidentiality of a patient's diagnosis. Did Dr. Braunstein seek and obtain consent from his patients before blabbing about diagnoses of his patients to his children?

Nothing in the @NYTimes article provides proof of consent by @realdonaldtrump to release of his confidential diagnosis to #daddyfootdoctor's children.

Ethics 0 - Braunstein 3.

Did Larry Braunstein report his violation of the law -- the claimed false diagnosis of bone spurs -- to federal, state, or local authorities? There is nothing in the Times article that suggests that he did so.

Ethics 0 - Braunstein 4.

Did he comply with the ethical duty to comply with the letter of the law and to report known violations of conduct? Again, if he did so, where is the evidence that he did? Ethics 0 - Braunstein 5.

So what do we have, at the end of the day?

A "scandal"?

Really?

No. Not really.

We have free form slanders unsubstantiated by a single document, asserting as fact, conduct by a deceased man that, were he to undertake such conduct today, would result in disciplinary treatment by the Board of Podiatry.

@threadreaderapp please roll up this thread