Former President Biden’s personal physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, sought to postpone his testimony in front of the House oversight committee due to a supposed need to sort out an agreement that would allegedly maintain doctor-patient confidentiality within the inquiry into Biden’s fitness during his presidency. Clearly, this could lead skeptics to question what Biden and his physician might be trying to hide about his health and his mental competency while in office. O’Connor, who was Biden’s White House physician, asked for a reprieve until late July or early August, supposedly ‘to protect the significant privilege and confidentiality interests’ of both himself and Biden.
Twisting the tale further, Dr. O’Connor’s attorney sent a letter to Representative James Comer of Kentucky, somehow arguing the need for this delay. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Republicans on the Oversight Committee has reassured that the committee will adhere to the House’s guidelines for depositions. These allow witnesses to exercise their privilege on a per-query basis, with the committee chair adjudicating each claim. Yet, in the Committee’s opinion, O’Connor is not permitted to postpone or refuse a congressional subpoena over concerns of potentially privileged information, poking holes in his misaligned justification.
It is incredibly intriguing how this situation adds a new layer of complexity to the broader tug of war over the Republican-led investigation into Biden’s age and mental aptitude. Not to mention the outstanding repercussions it holds for both political discourse and decision-making. Republicans have suggested that certain measures executed by Biden’s ‘autopen’ might prove to be void, on the assumption that Biden’s mental inadequacy could be established at any point in his tenure.
Biden counteracted these assertions that he was mentally not fit to a ludicrous extent, employing strong language such as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘false.’ However, one wonders, if he is indeed as clear-headed as he claims, then why would his personal physician need to delay his testimony or why would the White House block his testimony? A legitimate question falls into place: What is there to hide? The beginning of this controversy can be traced back to July of the previous year when the House Oversight Committee requested a testimony from Dr. O’Connor.
But the proverbial roadblock hit when the Biden administration intervened to prevent his testimony, further raising critical eyebrows. In May, Comer renewed his request and went on to issue a subpoena to the doctor in June. Yet, it seems that Dr. O’Connor’s attorney, David Schertler, is conveniently using this as an opportunity to play the victim card, contending that the refusal of the committee to accommodate Dr. O’Connor’s objections over privilege protection is grounds enough to dodge the necessity of a testimony.
Schertler’s letter goes to great lengths to raise an alarm about the committee’s stance, labelling it as ‘unprecedented’ and ‘alarming.’ He dramatically warns of the perceived threat this scenario holds to broader ‘medical privacy’ principles. Yet one could rightly assert that this evasive action could point to a deeper motive, such as a suspicious concern that O’Connor might face ‘grave consequences’ for jeopardizing his physician duties.
However, this excuse loses its credibility when one considers that these consequences include the risk of losing his medical license for supposedly violating doctor-patient privilege, a responsibility that stands regardless of political affiliations and most certainly public office. Comer retaliated by debunking claims of physician-patient privilege per the American Medical Association’s ethics code as lacking substance, arguing that this code is not part of federal law.
You see, the committee’s subpoena satisfies the AMA’s own conditions, demanding physicians to disclose patient’s medical information if they are ‘legally compelled to disclose the information’ or are ‘ordered to by legally constituted authority.’ Here, it becomes suspect that O’Connor might be misleading the situation by hiding behind a misunderstood veil of ‘doctor-patient’ privilege rather than acknowledging the legal specifications.
Last month saw some interesting moves when Neera Tanden, former director of Biden’s domestic policy council, willingly testified in front of the committee. The committee has been relentless, methodically requesting the testimonies of almost a dozen of Biden’s senior aides from his time in office. Among them were former White House chiefs of staff Ron Klain and Jeff Zients, former senior consultants Mike Donilon and Anita Dunn, and others.
The committee’s request also solicited vital information from the likes of former deputy chief of staff Bruce Reed, former presidential counselor Steve Ricchetti, former deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini, and a former presidential assistant, Ashley Williams. In a surprising move, the Trump administration had decided to renounce executive privilege for nearly 10 senior ex-Biden staffers.
When in effect, this privilege shields many interactions between the president and their staff from both Congress and the courts. Thus, the action frees these staffers to openly discuss their conversations with Biden during his tenure as president. Although this privilege can extend to former staffers, it’s noteworthy that the sitting administration retains the decision to waive it.
With this backdrop, mystery shrouds fervent questions about Biden’s mental health and cognitive capabilities. Were there lapses in his decision-making abilities? More importantly, was he in command of his cognitive facilities during his time in office or were there any instances of mental incapacitation? A peculiar veil hangs over this investigation, amplified by the reluctance of Biden’s own physician to testify and the administration’s rather aggressive efforts to block his testimony.
The unprecedented subpoena of Dr. O’Connor, the relentless inquiry by the House oversight committee, and the rant of Biden’s physician’s attorney bring this curious case of ‘doctor-patient privilege’ under the spotlight. However, one can’t help but question the dubious attempts to delay or evade an honest disclosure, especially when the health and mental fitness of a country’s leader is under scrutiny.
The argument around the ambiguous use of ‘doctor-patient privilege’ in this scenario frames against the backdrop of an important investigation into the mental competency of a national leader. The veil of secrecy, the delay tactics, and the reluctance to testify could potentially indicate more than what meets the eye. This controversy not only brings Joe Biden’s time in office under scrutiny, but it also paints a damning picture of the lengths an administration might allegedly go to maintain control and transparency, raising more questions than answers.