16

The Gateway Pundit writes:

Swedish dentist Bernt Herlitz revealed to authorities that after checking the molar teeth of hundreds of migrant children that 80% of the so-called children were actually adults.

Herlitz was quickly fired and now may lose his home.

It claims that he treated migrant children - 80% of which he suspected were actually adults.

A screen shot of the report has been appearing in right-wing Facebook pages.

Was Herlitz really fired for reporting his suspicions to the Swedish Migration Board or are there other reasons for him being fired?

Community
  • 1
Maria check profile
  • 833
  • 7
  • 18
  • 5
    I started to edit this, but I got confused. First, you haven't provided a notability source, so I want to add one. [Here is the article](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/swedish-dentist-reveals-80-migrant-children-actually-adults-fired-now-may-lose-home/). But it doesn't say he was fired due to political incorrectness. Is your question about whether he was fired, whether he was fired for the reason given (breaking patient confidentiality) or whether his claims about 80% adults are correct? – Oddthinking Nov 05 '17 at 12:50
  • I was thinking about addressing all 3 claims in a single question. Is that a bad idea? Should we stick to just 1 here and make other questions for the rest? – Maria check profile Nov 05 '17 at 12:56
  • Oh, in your link it says that about 70% are actually adults according to the Swedish Migration Agency. So no point in asking this I guess. Then it should be simply about why he was fired (which you answered in the question :P ). So how should I (or you) edit it? – Maria check profile Nov 05 '17 at 12:59
  • 5
    The original source is [this](https://samnytt.se/bernt-forsokte-stoppa-aldersfusket-kan-forlora-sin-lagenhet/). That site and the author seem to be associated with the Sweden Democrats, a far-right party with roots in fascism. Given the source, I think it is fair to doubt all of this. Though "Local swedish dental hygienist is fired for breaking patient confidentiality" seems like a boring claim. The question regarding child migrants being adults is more interesting. We have two claims (80% and 70%) from unreliable sources (gateway pundit and daily express), which I think makes a good question. – tim Nov 05 '17 at 13:03
  • 2
    @tim Ok if you consider the percentage better, we can make the question about it. Besides I was kinda interested in both, so perhaps I ll make a separate question for whichever claim is left out later. Feel free to edit it. – Maria check profile Nov 05 '17 at 13:18
  • 1
    I edited it, but I got a downvote before that. Was it because my question was unclear? Can you please revert your downvote. Now it's as narrow as it gets. – Maria check profile Nov 05 '17 at 15:47
  • 3
    @Mariacheckprofile I didn't DV, but I could imagine that someone might DV because this basically helps spread far-right propaganda, and for a pretty boring question at that. I voted to re-open though, because it seems on-topic now, and because we already know the answer, so we might as well answer it here now to clear things up. – tim Nov 06 '17 at 08:02
  • @tim Well, i don't see what else i can do to make it clear i do not endorse the claims in those articles. I included in-question hints that this is most likely far-right propaganda (_"I doubt that the above claims are true"_, _"[....] in right-wing facebook pages"_ in original OP); I have even edited my name and profile so that they can check where my questions originate from. I guess I'll have to live with being targeted for asking questions as a ... "far-right user". – Maria check profile Nov 06 '17 at 08:18
  • 7
    I did some checking and most hits are on far right blogs et.c. but it appears that he is a dental hygienist (i.e. not a dentist) and he was suspended for breaking patient confidentiality. According to https://web.archive.org/web/20170829045226/https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/aldersbestamde-flyktingar-pa-eget-bevag he had no authority to perform such tests. – liftarn Nov 06 '17 at 09:19
  • 1
    It's perfectly clear what OP is asking; should be reopened. – pmf Nov 06 '17 at 13:25
  • 1
    The answer is provided by the source - but the OP has removed it. Meaning there is some easy rep for anyone who wants to simply copy the answer from the source given, into the answer box. – Oddthinking Nov 06 '17 at 14:33
  • 6
    @Mariacheckprofile The person in question did a "body examination" ("kroppsundersökning" in Swedish) which according to Swedish law is entirely forbidden to do unless you have the authority to do so. And you can only do any such action when **required**; you certainly cannot do so willy-nilly on your own accord just because you want to try to prove some kind of point. If your professor think that it is OK that a person that violates the law and exceeds their authority, just because the result is in line with their opinion... well then I dare say that professor is in a slight minority. –  Nov 06 '17 at 15:12
  • 1
    @MichaelKarnerfors That's a good start for an answer, I'd say. – Arsak Nov 10 '17 at 07:41
  • @MichaelKarnerfors Marzipanherz is right, you might want to post this as an answer, along with links to Swedish law, the trial results, why he was not convicted (if Herlitz's claim is true), the reason his employer is more likely to have fired him for rules violation than political-correctness-related damage to business, and anything else you consider relevant. I need answers that can't be swept under the rug. Can't wait to shut my professor's mouth :P (not that I hate him, I kind of like him, but he also annoys me a lot) – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 13:13
  • @MichaelKarnerfors Also you might want to adress [this](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39926/was-swedish-dentist-bernt-herlitz-fired-because-he-revealed-that-migrant-adults?noredirect=1#comment166294_39937). I m guessing different legal definitions of "confidentiality breach"? But please provide source to prove it. – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 13:17
  • 1
    @Mariacheckprofile This was a comment, not an answer. And I used the wrong word: the concept in question is called "Kroppsbesiktning". Kroppsbesiktning may only be performed for the reasons specified in the Swedish criminal code (Brottsbalk), chapter 28, and by people specified. This not-really-a-dentist fulfilled neither of that. The fact that he then also took the information he gained and sent to to other people on his own accord, with no reason that is in line with his duties towards the people he examined, fully seals the deal. –  Nov 10 '17 at 13:28
  • 1
    @MichaelKarnerfors Are there exceptions to this? For example in some parts of EU disclosing personal data (eg. showing the picture of a convict to shame him) is a crime. If on the other hand police does that in order to gather data on his crimes (eg. if he is child molester) then it's not a crime. – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 13:51
  • 1
    @Mariacheckprofile There is absolutely no exception of the sort that lets a dental hygienist perform such examinations without supervision, not without cause, nor to then start passing the information gleaned on to others. –  Nov 10 '17 at 13:54
  • @MichaelKarnerfors I see. One question remains then. Why was there no fine or jail time? – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 15:45
  • @Mariacheckprofile Because no-one filed charges I suppose –  Nov 10 '17 at 15:52
  • @MichaelKarnerfors I don't think this is why (wouldn't make sence). There are 2 types of crimes where I live: 1. the offended has to sue the offender, 2: authorities prosecute the offender on their own. Initially i thought the answer to this question would be rather simple. Turns out it is quite complex after all. If you could do some digging (since i don't know swedish at all) and post an answer, that would be great. – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 16:00
  • 1
    @Mariacheckprofile there are many cases where criminal investigations are only started if victims come forward AND file charges, despite there being suspicions against a person (or even evidence) of wrongdoing. What makes me wonder though is whether this dentist wasn't in an impossible situation, guilty of aiding illegals if he didn't come forward with his claim and guilty of breaking patient/doctor privilege if he did. – jwenting Jul 11 '18 at 12:22

2 Answers2

12

The Gateway Pundit does seem to imply that Herlitz was fired because he "revealed" that migrants are fraudulently posing as children.

However, their translation of the original article makes it clear that this was not the reason he was fired. From the Gateway Pundit:

Bernt was dismissed after 10 years of service at Folktandvården. The employer said he broke patient confidentiality

The source is a far-right website associated with the fascist Sweden Democrats, so there is some doubt left about the facts (especially about the 80% figure "revealed" by a random dental hygienist, which seems to be unsupported).

As not even these sites are actually claiming that a dental hygienist was fired for "revealing" that migrants are fraudulently posing as children, it is fair to assume that it is not true.

tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 23
    Is the 'breaking patient confidentiality' purely a consequence of revealing that a high percentage of the patients were adults? If so, it's not unreasonable to say he was fired for revealing that info. If it was other info, then yeah, it's unrelated. – Ask About Monica Nov 06 '17 at 18:23
  • 6
    @kbelder I don't think it's at all reasonable to summarize it like that, as it's missing a detail that is crutial to understanding the story. "Swedish dental hygienist fired for breaking patient confidentiality" would not be a headline on a US-based website. The only reason that it is a headline is because the site is purposefully burrying that important part of the story so they can spin it as 'political correctness run amok, denist fired for speaking the truth about refugees'. – tim Nov 06 '17 at 20:06
  • 2
    But if anyone has better sources, I would welcome another answer. I find the question pretty boring, but did not want to leave it unanswered as it's spreading far-right propaganda if not properly corrected. Maybe OP will also ask a question about the 80%, because that is the more interesting question, and I have serious doubt about the number (not just because of the incredibly unreliable sources). – tim Nov 06 '17 at 20:08
  • 6
    @kbelder No, that is silly. That is like saying "What happened to your car?" and you say "I had a flat".... after it was smashed to bits against the front of a truck. Well it is true that the event did puncture a tire and it deflated. But the flat is not what the event was all about. Same here: the [**cause of action**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_of_action) against the hygienist was not that he "revealed" some information, but that he illegally obtained that information and then passed that information on, also in an illegal manner. –  Nov 07 '17 at 07:36
  • 1
    @tim I created a question about the percentage as well as you sugested. Feel free to answer. – Maria check profile Nov 08 '17 at 06:37
  • @Mariacheckprofile Nah, I'll let someone who can speak swedish handle that (the only non-swedish sources I could find are incredibly unreliable; although you might want to consider including them as claim in your question; if it turns out that there are no actual numbers, debunking those numbers could also be a valid answer; otherwise the numbers would just stand undisputed; and if the numbers are actually real, it would give someone a starting point to answer). – tim Nov 08 '17 at 08:04
  • 15
    It should also be noted that he had no qualifications for doing such checks, nor was it a part of his job. https://web.archive.org/web/20170829045226/https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ost/aldersbestamde-flyktingar-pa-eget-bevag – liftarn Nov 08 '17 at 08:59
  • 1
    @kbelder To reveal that 80% of them were adults is not breaking confidentiality. You break confidentiality when you reveal something that **identifies** a patient (even if indirectly--give enough facts that someone could identify them and it doesn't matter that you didn't say a name), not when you reveal anonymous medical information. – Loren Pechtel Nov 10 '17 at 03:36
  • @LorenPechtel I was wondering the same thing. In other EU countries you __must__ reveal the patient's ID (directly or otherwise) in order to constitute a crime, and it would be punished. So why did the court say he broke confidentiality then and why was he not punished (jail time, fines etc)? – Maria check profile Nov 10 '17 at 13:15
  • 1
    @LorenPechtel Do you know the Swedish laws about medical confidentiality well enough to make such a claim? Most studies do give consent forms to patients before revealing summary statistics about them. – Christian Nov 16 '17 at 22:14
  • Its possible that both are true. Medical confidentiality ethics https://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/confiden.html say that medics should only disclose medical information about individuals under certain tightly limited circumstances. To do otherwise would cause people to avoid getting medical help that they need out of fear of exposure. Hence if Herlitz did state that specific migrants were posing as children then this would be a breach of confidentiality. – Paul Johnson Jul 10 '18 at 09:57
  • @PaulJohnson depends no doubt on who he contacted with that information. If he went to immigration police with evidence that some of his customers were traveling on obviously false (because of their dental record) documents, I'd think he'd not be breaking any law, in fact I'd guess he'd break the law by not disclosing that knowledge to authorities. If he published a list of names on some blog, he'd definitely be breaking the law. – jwenting Jul 11 '18 at 12:19
  • 2
    @jwenting Herlitz is accused of a breach of medical ethics, not the law. Medical personnel in general are expected to treat patient confidentiality as a higher duty than reporting crime except under specific limited circumstances. See https://www.ahcmedia.com/articles/140406-ethical-responses-if-clinician-is-asked-to-help-law-enforcement (which is a US perspective, but the principles are widely accepted) – Paul Johnson Jul 11 '18 at 13:56
  • 1
    I don't have the sources right now but I read the actual letter that he sent. I should probably write up a proper answer when I get home tomorrow, but the "breaking of confidentiality" was that he actually sent the full name and ID of the people involved, instead of simply informing that he's seen odd teeth and asking how to proceed. The case is a bit more nuanced, seeing how the immigration authority has actually _requested_ people to report such findings. – pipe Jul 13 '18 at 14:11
  • @pipe I also read the part about immigration requesting those kinds of reports from Herlitz and his supporters. If you have a reliable source, that would be great! A source for the name/ID part would also be good, and would make for a good answer if you can find it. – tim Jul 13 '18 at 14:15
7

Part of the claim is that Herlitz was able to distinguish legal minors (i.e. under 18) from legal adults by examining their teeth.

Estimating age from the teeth has a long history. Here is a survey of a number of modern scoring techniques derived from linear regression studies of dental features that vary with age. All of these techniques give an estimate of age, but the error range (where given) can be over 5 years. In addition the features being scored can be influence by diet (e.g. wear on the surface of the teeth), nutrition, general health and genetics (aka "race"). When looking at someone who claims to be 17 and trying to determine if they are actually 18 or older these techniques are not useful unless the claimant is really at least 24.

Paul Johnson
  • 15,814
  • 7
  • 66
  • 81
  • I'm sure the dentist in questions knows that and took it into account when making his statements. – jwenting Jul 11 '18 at 12:16
  • 17
    He wasn't a dentist, he had no training in any of these techniques and I don't see any evidence that he took their error bars into account. Given the lack of medical ethics exhibited (see comments elsewhere on this page) it is perfectly plausible that he did not. – Paul Johnson Jul 11 '18 at 13:59
  • 2
    Worth noting that for people 17 and older, you can only use the high-error techniques based on tooth features, rather than the low-error techniques based on tooth development/presence. – Mark Jul 11 '18 at 23:31
  • @jwenting why are you sure he took this into account? And doctor-patient confidentiallity basically bars a health professional from revealing even that a person is a patient. Revealing age is a quite clear violation! – vidarlo Jul 14 '18 at 17:41
  • @vidarlo as far as I'm aware he never revealed names, only made a statement about the high percentage of supposedly underage migrant patients he was seeing whose dental work indicated they were definitely adults. – jwenting Jul 16 '18 at 04:56