Clarification

I am concerned that members who read “Psychiatrist in Legal Fight Over Privacy of Records” in the April 18 issue may not fully understand my situation and actions.

The article might be read to suggest that I refused to cooperate with an investigation of the Maryland Board of Physician Quality Assurance (BPQA). Rather, the record clearly documents that I both indicated a willingness to cooperate with the BPQA and requested that the BPQA assist me with an ethical dilemma. Since the patients and the patients’ counsels refused to waive their confidentiality privilege, “[Dr. Eist] indicated that he wished to cooperate but. . .was faced with ‘conflicting ethical and legal obligations,’ ” according to Judge Barchi. The judge goes on, “The Respondent [Dr. Eist] suggests that even if everything the Board alleges is correct, the Respondent did not fail to cooperate with the Board’s attempt to investigate a complaint against him. I agree. The Respondent did not ignore the subpoena nor did he decline to assist the Board in acquiring what information it might need to investigate the complaint. The Respondent indicated that his patients opposed the release of confidential information and awaited a response from the Board on how to proceed.”

Moreover, the judge stated, “I am convinced that the Respondent followed the only ethical course of action available to him under the circumstances. The Respondent did not fail to cooperate; rather he attempted to cooperate while preserving the integrity of the confidential relationship with his patients.”

I hope that this clarifies that I appropriately objected to the release of confidential records. The judge’s comments show that the Board is caught up in a punitive and destructive power struggle to the detriment of those with mental illnesses and the psychiatric profession.