Former LTC Terrence Lakin Denied Medical License
Here and here are results of former LTC Terrence Lakin’s application for a Kansas medical license. The KS Board in denying his medical license stated:
Applicant’s refusal to deploy to Afghanistan to provide medical services in support of Operation Enduring Freedom due to his own personal beliefs represents a disregard for his professional duties and undermines the integrity of the medical profession. Of even more significance, Applicant’s actions potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for which Applicant was employed to provide medical care. . . . .
After seeking modification based on misstatements about the nature of the conviction, the Board denied reconsideration, stating.
The Board also found that Petitioner’s actions and conduct underlying his court-martial convictions constituted dishonorable conduct and that denial of his application for licensure was warranted due to the egregiousness of his conduct. . . .
Comments surely to follow. H/t RC (via DHS)
Lakin said this to the reporter from KCTV
Five months in Leavenworth and $2,000,000 later he is as clueless as ever.
He was disciplined not for his political views, but the manner in which he expressed them.
In any walk of life, if one chooses to express one’s “political views” by breaking the law, punishment will follow.
I don’t know, Phil. It seems to me that “the manner in which he expressed them” applies more to his YouTube video and the like.
What he got hammered for was not doing as he was told.
Some time ago, I think we discussed whether Lakin’s claimed right to disobey Executive Branch orders based on the purported ineligibility of the President would have any bearing on whether he could be expected to follow, for example, FDA regulations or other requirements imposed on the medical profession after January 20, 2009. From a risk management perspective, it’d be hard to justify hiring him.
The Kansas board appears not to have considered that question, choosing to deny Lakin a license based on his past conduct, which it said was “not unlike an emergency physician called to the emergency room to see a patient, who refuses to come based on a belief that the call is inappropriate.” Even though there was someone to take his place, the doctor would still have ”a professional and ethical obligation” to go. That Lakin didn’t fulfill that obligation was enough to deny him a license.
I’m not a doctor, but that conclusion doesn’t seem out of line.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for Lakin, this is a self-inflicted wound. But, I am concerned that this discipline was not taken because this doctor’s crimes were related to the provision of patient care in any manner. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t he convicted of absence and obedience offenses? As I understand the case, he did not specifically abandon any patients and continued to report to a clinic and treat patients. Also, another doctor did fill his slot. So there is a valid question as to whether this conviction is sufficiently related to the practice of medicine to justify this denial.
Were the former LTC to darken my door, I would probably demand that he acknowledge having been led astray by his former counsel. But, I have argued before licensing authorities that strictly military offenses are not a proper basis to revoke a license absent some misconduct that is clearly related to the ability to practice.
Although I appreciate the argument that he cannot be trusted to follow FDA regs that is a very different refusal that has a direct relationship to medicine.
I think Lakin’s quixotic venture is and was stupid but I am not automatically buying the idea that his crimes are properly used to deny him a license.
Yikes, all the formatting info on my last comment showed-sorry.
@Bridget Wilson–am I wrong in reading the board’s refusal as they took the position that his refusal to go to Afghanistan was the same as a refusal to report to work at a clinic in a certain neighborhood vice the neighborhood where he wanted to be? Because this whole sad affair has struck me that way from the get-go–
He would continue to serve if he could serve where he wanted to, on his terms, and not have to do what his superiors needed or wanted him to do, and disregarding where he was needed because of his beliefs about the boss. And for what it’s worth, I don’t really see the value to society in denying him a license to practice medicine. I wouldn’t hire him to work for the Army, but his political beliefs shouldn’t preclude his ability to properly diagnose and treat a medical condition.
@ BW:
He did have a replacement — but per the Kansas board’s decision, that’s not good enough, ethically or professionally, to satisfy a physician’s personal responsibility to the patients who come in seeking his care.
You’ll also recall, as COL Sullivan reported during the trial, that MAJ Dobson — the doctor who had to go to Afghanistan when Lakin refused to go — missed some of his training and wasn’t able to deploy with the unit:
Whether or not he had a replacement is irrelevant. It’s like an attorney being detailed to a court and then refusing to show up. The fact that another attorney takes over only goes to whether the client was harmed. The issue still remains that the attorney violated professional responsibilities. In this case, Lakin skirted his responsibilities for political purposes. Doesn’t matter that another doctor stepped in; that shouldn’t happen. Political ideology should have no bearing in performance of duties in the military or civilian context. Our professions, lawyers or doctors, don’t allow rejection of duties because we don’t like our boss. I think the licensing decision was solid… he should face some ramifications for unprofessional decisions. I don’t think that should be permanent, however, but more like a period of suspension or probation.
I’m a little surprised considering the action that the KS Board took against CAPT Yolanda Huet-Vaughn (a $5000 fine instead of losing the license) for the same thing, but then she already had a license and was treating an underserved population in Kansas City. (For reference: http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/1999/19990416/80362.htm) She appealed this fine stating that her confinement was not a felony but lost the case because she did not object to paying the fine at the time. The felony issue apparently was never decided.
Of course, Dr Lakin never had a license to practice in KS, so the Board has wider discretion and does not have to defend the position that they think he was derelict in his actions. Dr. Lakin does not have a right to the license and the KS board (which is very conservative, believe me) would rather not have him practice in the state.
As an aside, CAPT Huet-Vaughn was in my Reserve unit for a day or so and we all disapproved of her actions. Still, I did write a letter to the Board urging them not to take her license away as she was serving a very poor part of Kansas City, KS and seemed sincere in staying on there. The Board, from what I heard, was inclined to can her but made the decision to censor her instead. I think that was the right decision and I think they made the right decision concerning Dr. Lakin.
I’m sure he has a bright financial future on the wingnut talk circuit. He chose this path, hard to feel sorry for a guy who threw away a promotion to O-6 and a guaranteed retirment worth millions.
I’m sorry, that’s “censure”, not censor although I guess he thought they censored him too. The Board very cleverly avoided the next paragraph of the law which mentions felonies as a criterium for denying license.
I guess they learned something from Huet-Vaughn.
I would think that the fact he took the two weeks leave, etc showed a lack of honesty concerning business. He stole from his employer.
It doesn’t sound like they trust his judgement. (duh)
It probably would have helped his case if he was not still playing the birfer game. I still think there is a serious question whether this conviction impairs the doctor in the practice of medicine. Do I think he is a fool, yeah, pretty much, but I bet he can still take care of patients. Even doctors do stupid things. Comparison with lawyers is a little off target. Indeed, the treatment of Huet-Vaughn is a contrast. I don’t know what the appeals process is in Kansas for med board decisions, but he may have a case if he gets a better lawyer than the ones who apparently promoted his kamikaze dive into a criminal conviction. Of course, he would be a better client if he 1.) shut up about the crusade against the POTUS, 2.) got a clue about the garden path he wandered down with the encouragement of his former counsel and 3.) grovelled a bit and put himself in a place (see, Huet-Vaughn) of serving the greater good. But, I don’t anticipate that he will pick up the clue phone at any time in the near future.
Bridgit,
The KS denial has nothing to do with his ability to practice medicine, rather it is based on a “dishonorable conduct” criterion (I messed up the spelling above) which is defined by the board in this case as not meeting the obligations of a physician to treat patients. It does not address Dr. Lakin’s confinement (they learned to avoid that with Huet-Vaughn) just his reliability and his ability to honor his patients.
I think that there was a 30 day window in which he could appeal the ruling which occurred in December of 2011. He may have done so.
Dr. Huet-Vaughn never grovelled and to this day maintains that she was correct in her actions. She is still winning awards from anti-war/peace groups and is involved in left leaning political movements. She also still serves the area she was in during Desert Storm. She had an established practice in KS when the board censured her. She paid a fine and that was the reason she could not go any further with the case. Had she refused or paid a bond instead she may have won her case but the question of a felony was never brought up due to an error on her part. (Paying the fine.)
Having heard Lakin speak on radio shows I beg to differ on his value on the talk circuit. It is hard to underestimate his charisma and presence. His book launch has been delayed several times.
Perhaps it’s my own bias showing, but some pretty non-charismatic folks seem to gin up a decent-sized following.