Here’s a piece the National Post just published. Check out the comments on their page and leave your own here!
Jordan Peterson’s regulator is fighting for itself, not patients
Professional colleges claim that they serve the public, but self-interest is the priority
Jordan Peterson’s fight with his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, reveals the heart of battle between professionals and the regulatory state: it’s the self-interest of the regulator, rather than the wellbeing of patients, that is the priority.
Last spring, the college investigated several complaints about Peterson’s tweets on politics, social issues and transgenderism. Complaints came from concerned citizens — not Peterson’s clients. In November, the college ruled that Peterson’s conduct “poses moderate risks to the public,” and was “degrading to the profession.”
For Peterson to keep his clinical license, the college required him to hire a coach, at his own expense, to learn how to tweet in a professional manner. Peterson appealed this to the courts, countering that the college had no business adjudicating private political commentary. Last week, three judges in the Ontario Divisional Court ruled for the college.
The case raises obvious concerns about free speech, Charter rights and professional regulation. Surely, the college saw these issues coming — yet it still chose to pursue Peterson.
Ignorance or maleficence explains many of the silly things regulatory colleges do, but not all. We must also consider self-preservation. According to the college’s decision, which was quoted in last week’s court ruling, Peterson risked “undermining public trust in the profession of psychology, and trust in the college’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest.”
Peterson’s case pivots on public trust in the college, not patient safety. No active patients were involved; Peterson named public figures and mentioned on a Joe Rogan podcast that a “vindictive” former patient, who was not named, had once filed an unfounded complaint about him. The college felt the comment was inappropriate and warranted re-education. The only entity at risk in the Peterson case is the college itself. Why worry so much about public trust?
The College of Psychologists is one of 26 distinct regulatory colleges in Ontario, which regulate 29 separate health professions. Each college reports to the Minister of Health, as outlined in the Regulated Health Professions Act.
Like other public institutions, such as hospitals and public schools, regulatory colleges answer to government. Colleges must appease the minister and maintain a “tough on crime” public image.
This puts colleges in a bind. They say they have a “duty to protect the public, making sure healthcare professionals are safe, ethical and competent.” But colleges cannot stay in business without government support.
Each regulatory college collects membership fees (dues) from its members. For example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario collects $1,725 each year from the province’s 31,500 practicing physicians, in addition to a long list of other fees. The College of Psychologists has half as many psychologists and lower membership fees, but it’s still a multi-million-dollar organization filled with well-paid employees.
If college employees want to keep their jobs and protect their organizations, they must serve one master while pretending to serve another. They must maintain a public image of pure devotion to patient safety, even though serving government remains their primary concern.
This problem is not unique to regulatory colleges; economists and institutional theorists call it the “principal-agent problem.” Public institutions often face conflicts of interest. They say they exist to protect the public, but they must protect themselves. They cannot avoid self-interest.
The Ontario court chose to ignore the principal-agent problem. Instead, it focused only on whether or not the regulator had the right to restrict Peterson’s freedom of speech, outside of clinical practice. (Presumably, the court is not immune to the principal-agent problem either.)
In fairness, some of Peterson’s social media comments are cutting. Screenshots pasted into mainstream media create an effect much like locker-room banter at a dinner party. Right or wrong, speech codes differ by audience and location. Regulators shouldn’t have a right to control it all.
The colleges might protest they are simply bound by legislation to restrict the speech of professionals. Regulatory control ballooned when Bob Rae’s New Democratic Party tabled the Regulated Health Professions Act; we should blame Rae and not the regulators, they could argue.
It’s true that the case against Peterson could not have occurred without the enabling legislation. Even so, regulators should not say they simply serve the public when they (clearly) prioritize their own public image.
Bureaucracies do things to justify their own existence.
Too true
A colleague shared Pournelle’s rule with me today:
“In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals that the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.”
There’s a longer version which says much the same.
Thanks for posting, Gerry!
This self serving wokeness , which arose from post modernist academia, has permeated almost all of the professional bodies including our own.
Hopefully Jordan will put these Orwellian reeducation sessions alive on line.
Yes, what a wonderful way to undermine them. I’d be surprised if they allow it.
I’ve tried to stop using “woke”. As with all radical language, they change it as soon as people realize it’s a distasteful concept. The same radicals now watch for anyone who uses ‘woke’ as a way to identify anyone OUTSIDE their group. It’s like a reverse dog whistle.
Calling the whole anti-reality movement simply “political correctness” (or some version thereof) seems to work best. The irony is that it is now an old term — great when a radical movement goes back to being best described with a reactionary label 😀
Thanks for posting, Andris!
Sorry, but I often utilise the term to get up the noses of the Holy Trinity : Equity, Diversity and Inclusion crowd.
I’ll try to resist on this site.
You are SO bad. 😀
Use whatever term you like (including on here)! I was only saying what I’ve been doing.
Why change? You call a spade a spade and always have!
Don
Peterson has become a social justice warrior fighting EDI,CRT,radical transgenderism,sexualization of children and neomarxism in general.
Not surprising the CPO would go after him.
I’m increasingly alarmed by the judicial decisions around cases like his,however.Like the Supremes not hearing the Day case,clearly the judiciary has decided the collective is far more important than the individual,sadly.
Indeed.
Good comment about the courts, also. Why are they working so hard to protect the administrative state?
These are fundamentals of a parliamentary democracy. If we no longer have true separation of powers and the courts defer to their colleagues in the executive branch of government (and regulators, etc), we have only a form of parliamentary democracy. Voting, on its own, was never enough to make our system work.
Great to hear from you! Thanks for posting
Cheers
Did you see the NP article “High-level judges may have paid to meet Trudeau prior to their appointments” ? Three times as many Liberal party donors have been appointed to judicial office than conservative donors since 2016 according to the article.
Of course they will be towing the party line.
I saw that article. Do you think there’s any worry about the “may have paid” part?
If it’s true, we are sunk.
Thanks for posting a comment!
This has been going on for years in both the Conservative and Liberal Camps. Nothing new.
Dr. Peterson is far too great a threat to the ideologies overtaking us these days. “They” will go after him relentlessly.
I think you’re right, Valerie.
Hey, great to hear from you. Hope you are well.
cheers
You can google the Ontario Court decision if you wish. It is here https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/peterson-v-college-of-psychologists-of-ontario/
Jordan Peterson stopped treating patients 6 years ago; essentially he closed his psychology practice, though he maintained his licence. There was no complaint to his College by any patient.
Shawn is correct. This was a show trial by the College Of Psychology, intended to appease and support the “administrative state” and reinforce the activities of other health disciplines regulators under control of the provincial government. It is in the Province’s interest to keep all health professions in line.
Peterson is often a provocateur, but whatever we may personally think of his public comments and opinions, in the absence of advocacy to violence or slander/libel etc, the proper response is to ignore if it offends … or to verbally oppose the opinion in the venue where one finds it.
I recommend Mr Michael Alexander for his comments as well .. to be found at https://justiceformedicine.com/2023/08/25/ontario-court-denies-peterson-right-to-freedom-of-expression/
Mr Alexander is counsel to Dr Trozzi, whose disciplinary case is before the CPSO at present
As always, Mike, you get to the facts and offer a rational response to the challenge.
Really appreciate you sharing these links. (The spam software holds comments with links for review. so that’s why your comment didn’t pop up yesterday afternoon — sorry!)
I hope you are well. Sure do miss our days of speaking truth to power at the OMA. Now the OMA board has even less reason to listen to the membership! 😀
Thanks again
I’ve been following this issue when I have time, though I try to focus on my clinical practice these days. I’ll make an exception today. Peterson, for reasons unknown to me, keeps coming across my feed on the social media platform formerly known as twitter.
I have no problem with allowing people to say what they want to, in general. However (and you can call me woke if you want though I don’t really understate term) I have very little tolerance for hate speech. And some of his posts qualify as that.
This has nothing to do with right or left. For instance, I call out antisemitism from the left as often as I do from the right. No party seems to be free of bigotry.
I recognize that it is not always possible to ban hate speech, and sometimes there can be debate over what actually constitutes hate speech.
But freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom from repercussions of that speech. For instance, if a business owner posts messages that offend, he or she cannot complain if people are offended and choose not to be clients of that business. We saw this with a popular beer in the US recently.
Moreover, what people say out loud is often an indicator of what they think. And as physicians we all learned about biases. We try to practice without them.
When someone shouts out their biases from the roof tops, it is not unreasonable to be concerned that their biases will affect their practice.
I’ve seen a lot of vile stuff on “X”, and a lot of what Peterson posts could make one concerned for the well-being of the highly vulnerable clients he is licensed to treat.
His College, like ours, has a duty to ensure the safety of the public. If there are legitimate concerns that Peterson’s biases are unsafe, the College has a duty to act. That’s the law.
Would you allow a child psychologist who publicly advocated for the legalization of paedophilia to treat your child in private? Would you allow a surgeon who thought washing hands and using sterile technique were a waste of time to operate on patients?
No one has an unlimited right to practice in a regulated profession. With licensure there is a duty to uphold the standards of the profession. Part of that includes how we behave.
While we can argue about the threshold for censure, I will not concede the duty of the regulating college to protect the public.
Ideally the purpose of remediation is to make people understand how their behaviour harms others. Not just to stop the behaviour. Presumably, the counselling would teach him not only not to say the quiet things out loud, but to reflect on how his words cause harm. Of course, there is also the chance that he is so set in his ways that remediation is impossible. In that case he remains entitled to his views, but not entitled to practice as a licensed psychologist.
Hal! Thank you so much for chiming in. I always appreciate you offering an opposing opinion
Given the examples you state — eg pedophilia, incitement to violence (‘hate speech’) — shouldn’t this have gone to the disciplines committee? As I understand it, the CPO did not think it warranted discipline.
Do you have supporting evidence for Peterson making those kinds of statements? I haven’t seen any — many provocative things, but nothing as you describe.
Full disclosure: I have not followed every detail of this case or even Jordan Peterson in general. I find him too intense for me — brilliant, but too intense. I feel stressed listening for too long. But I think that’s why younger people love him so much. He emotes what they feel (transference by public address).
In summary, your note looks like a straw man to me. But I’m open to seeing evidence of the serious accusations you level.
Hey, thanks again for writing! Really nice to hear from you. I hope you are well (and still smiling!!)
Cheers
Shawn,
Thanks for responding.
I’m afraid I must not have been clear enough. I did not accuse Peterson of paedophilia, I asked whether you would let someone who publicly advocated for its acceptance provide care for your child. It was a hypothetical question.
My understanding is that the college agreed that some of what he posted on social media was egregious enough to cause concern that he could be unsafe. Their decision, not mine.
That he no longer practices is irrelevant. As long as he has certification he is bound by the college’s rules of conduct.
As for his social media presence, he has every right to be despicable on social media. But freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Regards,
Hershl
I wish I could say I’m surprised but having been though my own SCERP and “re-education” I know that it’s an internal political machine at work.
I would pull up my reprimand but it was rescinded by the CPSO (I guess assuming I was a good little doc now and no longer a danger to the public), or they realized it represented a hand grenade and the pin was missing. 😜
I wish Dr. Peterson all the best and I do hope when he goes up against his college and the Supreme Court hands him the win, I will be seeing it live-streamed.
Our college strictly denies the transparency of streaming or even providing copies of their communications should they be available to be used against them in the future.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
Ozzy
You know of what you speak! The stress and mental anguish of going through the college gauntlet has crushed many docs — but not you.
Our last registrar wrote in his farewell address that we should put self regulation into the dustbin of history. We now need simply regulation of medicine. Before the Regulation Health Professions Act 1991, we were governed by the Medical Care Act 1869. For 122 years we did not have the concentration of power in the college like we have now.
I’d better stop. Feeling myself getting worked up before my first coffee!
Thanks so much for posting a comment — great to hear from you!
Cheers
Hi Ozzy
The report on my CPSO Discipline shenanigans is still online at https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDetails/David-Michael-Goodwin/0022879-27670 … I’m proud to say.
But then I only have a reputation and not a licence to protect any longer ..
Maybe we few should form a special interest group, those of us who “bullied” the OMA President and our lovely Minister Eric the Unmentionable back in the day … College Charter Martyrs … or some such name … just to remind the remaining doctor abusers who suck the hind tit on College St that we aren’t going anywhere … and that their nasty self serving Court of Star Chamber is coming to an end.
Eric the Unmentionable. Nice. Love the group idea, too.
Honestly, I’m on pins and needles waiting for the Play-by-Play of his “Reeducation Sessions.” It will make HIGHLY ENTERTAINING VIEWING !! I’m sure I’ll be getting my full money’s worth on my Daily Wire subscription…..
Too funny. I’m not sure if it will be fun as in lancing-an-abscess, or fun as in watching-a-movie. I’m assuming the abscess version.
Great to hear from you. Take notes. Put them into an essay somewhere — here if the Med Post won’t publish them
Cheers
It will be much like watching Galileo being “ re-educated” by the Inquisition….or the Monty Python version …the “ how do you know that she’s a witch ?” skit.
In Canada, it is my understanding that the CPSO, (College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) is a self regulating body and that means we are still recognized legally as a “Profession”. As well it is very much in my opinion a democratic regulatory body controlled by the members. I suspect the other Colleges have similar status. It is noted that in my opinion during Covid Pandemic the Government took control of the CPSO when it wished and our leadership sadly acquiesced. I suspect the Psychologists’ College did the same. The Government didn’t like what Dr. Petersen was saying and must be punished. Professionals during COVID must stick with the Government Narrative. A large group of Physicians were an embarrassment, IMHO, to the profession. I hope I would have stood up but I will never know as I was already retired.
Hello Graeme — great to hear from you!
“Self-regulation” hinges on how we define it and how that definition has changed over time. Who has control? Who decides? Who writes policy? Who decides what warrants a policy? All this has changed over the last several decades. There’s a spectrum from a rotating physician leadership model (like the old department Chief approach) to a situation in which physicians are just one voice amongst many opining over policy written by lawyers and policy experts, to be implemented by professional managers.
Your comments about COVID sound like ‘regulatory capture’. It’s a risk that any regulatory authority could be controlled by the membership (or a faction) to serve their own ends.
Hey, thanks so much for taking time to read and post!
Cheers