Ex-White House Physician Criticizes Silence

A former White House physician has publicly criticized Dr. Kevin O’Connor, the former physician to President Joe Biden, for his silence during a recent House Oversight Committee investigation. Dr. O’Connor, who was subpoenaed for a closed-door interview with committee staff and Chair James Comer, R-Ky., invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions except to confirm his name. This decision has drawn criticism from Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, also a former White House doctor, who argues that O’Connor’s silence leaves him with “nothing to stand on.”

Concerns Over Doctor-Patient Confidentiality

Dr. O’Connor’s legal team expressed concerns that the broad scope of the investigation could compromise doctor-patient confidentiality. They argued that revealing confidential information about President Biden’s medical care would violate ethical duties and potentially result in civil liability or revocation of O’Connor’s medical license. Despite these concerns, Comer proceeded with the inquiry, emphasizing that the patient-doctor privilege no longer applied due to the legal nature of the subpoena.

Investigation into Alleged Cover-Up

The investigation led by Comer aims to uncover whether Biden’s former aides concealed signs of his mental and physical decline while in office. The inquiry also questions whether any executive actions were authorized without Biden’s full awareness. Jackson, who played a significant role in formulating questions for O’Connor, believes that the alleged cover-up could not have occurred without O’Connor’s involvement.

Legal and Ethical Implications

O’Connor’s refusal to answer questions has sparked debate over legal and ethical boundaries in congressional investigations. His lawyers maintain that invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt but a necessary response to protect patient confidentiality. The committee’s insistence on accessing confidential medical information challenges established legal privileges and raises concerns about potential repercussions for medical professionals involved in political inquiries.