Oregon’s New Rule Could Penalize Doctors for Microaggressions

Oregon’s forthcoming ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board could put doctors at risk of losing their medical licenses for committing “microaggressions,” according to Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, an acknowledged expert on the subject. The state government has been promoting Sue’s views as a cornerstone of its new regulatory approach.

Under the proposed rule, doctors who engage in what the board deems as “microaggressions”—subtle or indirect behaviors interpreted as bias by women or minorities—could face severe penalties, including license revocation. Oregon law requires doctors to report “unprofessional conduct” by themselves or colleagues within 10 business days, with failure to comply leading to significant consequences.

The Oregon Medical Board’s new rule broadens the scope of “unprofessional conduct” to include “discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions.” This expansion aims to address subtle behaviors that may reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about non-majority groups. Discrimination, as defined in the rule, encompasses disparities in healthcare quality not related to access, clinical needs, or patient preferences.

The move to incorporate microaggressions into the definition of unprofessional conduct reflects a broader trend of integrating left-leaning cultural values into medical practice. For instance, UCLA’s medical school recently faced scrutiny for a “health equity” class that controversially included a speaker leading chants of “Free, Free Palestine” and urging students to honor “Mama Earth.”

Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, a former associate dean at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and leader of the anti-woke group Do No Harm, argues that this proposed rule could stifle honest communication between doctors and patients. “If physicians fear repercussions for delivering frank assessments or comments that might be misinterpreted, it could lead to a chilling effect on free speech and deteriorate the patient-physician relationship,” Goldfarb warns. He believes this could ultimately degrade the quality of healthcare.

Elizabeth Ross, a policy analyst for the Oregon Medical Board, stated that the board will review the proposed rule at a meeting on July 11. She emphasized that the rule aims to enhance racial equity by establishing discrimination as a basis for disciplinary action. However, Ross noted that the board does not anticipate a major shift in medical practice because discrimination is already considered unethical under federal laws and existing facility bylaws.

The proposed rule’s impact remains uncertain, as it does not specify how microaggressions will be defined or how related complaints will be handled. For context, Oregon’s “DEI Action Plan” from 2021 includes examples of microaggressions, such as asking a minority, “How did you get your job?” The state’s Department of Transportation also references Sue’s categories of microaggressions—”microassault,” “microinsult,” and “microinvalidation”—and considers statements like “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough!” as microaggressions.

The board’s proposed rule aligns with its “DEI Action Plan” from 2023, which calls for adding a definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in medical practice. The current Oregon statute lists various forms of unprofessional conduct, such as performing unnecessary medical tests or engaging in egregious behavior like possessing child pornography. The inclusion of microaggressions represents a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for medical professionals in Oregon.