Ethical Dilemmas in Medical Response to COVID-19: A Critical Analysis with Dr. Brian Procter
An interview with a family physician who operated on the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic, striving to keep his patients safe and advocating for the right to use the best treatment.
In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was referred to Doctor Brian Procter, the CEO of The Well Integrated Medicine (formerly McKinney Family Medicine) as part of my effort to document a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine. Since that time, Dr. Procter has become my primary care physician and we have conversed at length about the pandemic response. At my urging, he agreed to sit down for an interview with me to explore the pandemic response through the lens of biomedical ethics. Our discussion, captured for a class assignment, evolved into a deep dive into the ethical complexities and decisions made during the pandemic, revealing layers of challenges that went far beyond healthcare.
From the outset, Dr. Procter was faced with a critical decision: to close his practice temporarily as per government directives or to remain open to serving his patients in a time of acute need. He chose the latter, driven by a deep-seated commitment to care for his community. This decision, while fraught with risk, underscored an ethical dilemma between the principle of non-maleficence, or not causing harm, and the imperative to continue providing essential medical services. The shutdowns, as Dr. Procter perceived them, were not merely about public health; they hinted at broader motives, possibly political, influencing these directives at the cost of patient care.
Our conversation then shifted to treatment options such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Dr. Procter had attempted to utilize these treatments, facing strong opposition and skepticism from regulatory bodies and the broader medical establishment. Here lay another ethical tension—between the suppression of medical autonomy and the need to adhere to established, although rapidly evolving, treatment protocols. For Dr. Procter, the sidelining of these drugs represented a significant ethical misstep, undermining the principle of beneficence, which obligates healthcare providers to help patients with the best available resources.
The use of masks was another divisive topic. Dr. Procter questioned their effectiveness, particularly those that were not N95, suggesting they might even be harmful. This skepticism was not just a medical opinion but an ethical stance on the balance between public health directives and individual autonomy—the freedom for professionals and the public to make informed choices about personal health measures.
Perhaps the most contentious issue we discussed was the development and deployment of mRNA vaccines. Dr. Procter criticized the accelerated vaccine approval process, arguing that it lacked the robust testing needed to fully ensure public safety and efficacy, essential components of informed consent. The rapid rollout of these vaccines, facilitated by emergency use authorization, seemed to contravene the typical, stringent processes that are foundational to medical ethics.
Throughout our discussion, a recurring theme was the perceived failure of the media and scientific community to uphold standards of honesty and rigor. We lamented the role of peer review and the mainstream media in potentially exaggerating fears rather than facilitating an informed and balanced public discourse.
Reflecting on our conversation, it was evident that the pandemic response was fraught with ethical missteps. Influenced by political and financial interests, these decisions often strayed from the fundamental principles of medical ethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. The issues we discussed—from treatment options and public health measures to vaccine rollout—highlighted a broader erosion of trust in institutions traditionally viewed as protectors of public health.
This interview with Dr. Procter not only shed light on the complex decisions faced by healthcare providers during COVID-19 but also emphasized the profound ethical quandaries that can arise in a global health crisis. As I continue my studies in biomedical ethics, these discussions will undoubtedly shape my understanding of how ethics are applied in real-world crises, underscoring the need for a thoughtful, well-informed approach to public health emergencies.