Commenting upon the work of others
Overt criticism of colleagues and of any treatment provided by them, expressed directly to a patient, has long been regarded as a practice to be deprecated. Not only does it reduce the confidence of patients in the profession as a whole, but it can also cause unnecessary irritation and heartache for the colleague who is criticised. In general, it is wiser to avoid getting drawn into making criticisms of another doctor, no matter how much a patient may pressurise you. In such cases, your initial stance could be that any concerns should be raised, in the first instance, with the doctor concerned. They are, after all, the person best placed to comment because only that doctor is in possession of all the facts. You can comment objectively on what you find today, but not on what might or might not have been the case at some previous moment in time, when you were not present.
Many criticisms are doubtless made by clinicians who feel that they have a duty to offer their views on treatment provided elsewhere, whenever a patient seeks their professional opinion and advice. Such an opinion may be given with the best of intentions, but without knowing all the relevant facts, such criticisms can only be regarded as uninformed and possibly even irresponsible. As a result they will usually be judgmental rather than objective and factual. Despite this, a small minority of clinicians appear to see themselves as self-appointed arbiters of what does and does not constitute an acceptable standard of care.
They are quick to criticise a colleague’s performance and offer an alternative opinion. These same people, however, seem unable to accept any criticism of their own work, or challenge of their opinions. A familiar and not entirely unnatural reaction to criticism is a demand that the colleague who has made the criticism should be sued in defamation forthwith. Everyone, however, is entitled to their own honestly-held professional opinion. The chances of a successful action are remote, unless it can be proved unequivocally that the criticism was motivated by malice – a fact that is notoriously difficult to demonstrate.