For Mr. S:
I'm going to take you at your word that you're honestly upset about this, and don't understand the rationale.
Although each board of medicine is independent and it's difficult to make any sweeping judgments regarding all of them, in general they will all ask questions about prior misdemeanors and felonies, and often also about any charges in general. They do this for several reasons:
1. Charges alone (without conviction) might represent a new offence that has not yet been litigated, an offence in the past that was "true" but couldn't be proven in a court of law and/or was plead down for expediency, or perhaps something that simply wasn't true at all. Boards have no interest in the latter, but perhaps lots of interest in the former. They would want to know if an applicant was charged with dealing drugs but then not convicted. Etc.
2. So why don't they make some rules about "you don't have to disclose speeding tickets" or something like that? Well, some boards do exactly that. But what you quickly discover is that it's very difficult to decide what's "important" to disclose, and what isn't. Let's stick with speeding, for example. What if you're caught doing 80 on an interstate with a limit of 65? What if you're doing 80 on the interstate and it's snowing like crazy? What if it's 80 in front of a hospital? What if it's happened multiple times? There's no good way to decide what should, or should not, be reported. So, they ask for everything. And then, they ignore anything minor.
I'm not sure what your major concern is. If you have a speeding ticket that's considered a misdemeanor in the state where you got it, you just disclose it and you'll get your license. No big deal. if you don't disclose it, then the lack of disclosure becomes the problem. No one would have cared. But now that you've lied about it, I worry you're hiding other things.
Some examples, from my board / program:
1. Resident gets a DUI. They went to dinner at a friend's house, had a couple glasses of wine. Drove home, ended up speeding down a hill and stopped. Asked if they had been drinking, answered yes to be honest was sure they were under the limit, blew over the limit. Came to me the next morning. "I done screwed up, is my career over?" is how our conversation started. Result: board was notified, recognized that we would have the resident under close supervision so did not impose any further requirements. Resident lost license for 6 months, was told needed to find a way to get to work on time every day. Did fine. Got job and license in another state (by choice). All good at last check.
2. Resident goes on vacation to another state, gets a DUI. Decides not to tell anyone, figures there's no way we would find out anyway. Of course, we end up finding out several months later. Result: Board revokes training license for not reporting in a timely manner. Fired immediately, because no license. Note that if reported in a timely manner, we would have had the same result as above.
3. Resident matches to our institution. After starting, while reviewing licensing paperwork, we discover that they list having attended two medical schools instead of one. ERAS application states only one medical school. Resident is questioned, says "oh yes, I went to med school A, failed out. I then went to Med School B and did fine. I assumed it didn't really matter since I graduated from medical school, which is what really matters". Result: it really matters. Terminated for fraud / incomplete application. We would have likely considered them, and matched, if they had been truthful in the first place.
This is the big leagues. You're a professional. Being a physician is a big job with lots of responsibility. Telling the truth is part of it.
Can this process run amok? Yes, it can. None of your examples come even close to real problems. But when boards have "concerns" about past psych issues and request private health records, or require psych assessments, or the whole concept of "disciplinary psychiatry" -- these can be problems and if we want to have a discussion about how to address or prevent these problems, I'm fine with that.
Of note, a common refrain in this type of question is "ask a lawyer". This is really not a good idea. First of all, if you ask 10 lawyers you're likely to get some to say disclose, and others to say not. How does that help? Plus lawyers look at questions like this as "what could I possibly defend in court?" As has been mentioned on this thread already, the best answer is to always disclose. That way, no one is taken by surprise, and you don't need to spend the next months / years worrying about it.
I appreciate your post above:
I think the boards are un necessarily invasive.
Umm, your post lost most of it's validity when you state "ask a lawyer" is realy not a good idea.
That to me is telling of your mindset and certainly "the boards" mindset. That is something they would say.
Happy New Year.
