Response to Snodgrass

Response to Snodgrass

We thank Dr. Brett Snodgrass for his careful and collegial reading of our article, ¹ and we appreciate the Journal of Medical Regulation for providing the opportunity to respond.

Dr. Snodgrass correctly identifies that Faber, et al, ² does not support the proposition to which citation 16 is attached. He is right that Faber, et al, is an important paper precisely because it examines the risks of unchecked board authority, documents inequitable disciplinary outcomes, and recommends structural reforms to improve fairness and accountability in licensing board processes. It does not argue for expanded board-law enforcement coordination and attaching it to that sentence misrepresents its contribution. We regret the error.

Our intent was to cite Faber and colleagues in support of the broader public safety framing at the end of that sentence rather than the law enforcement coordination point specifically. That intent notwithstanding, the citation lands where it lands, and we recognize that the placement is misleading regardless of what we meant by it.

The appropriate citation for the law enforcement coordination point is McIntosh, et al, (2023), ³ which directly addresses coordinated responses to serious ethical violations and is already cited in the same subsection as citation 15. We would also note that Faber, et al, finds a more natural home earlier in the Discussion, where we address the structural limitations of board oversight and the resource constraints that hinder effective regulation, arguments Faber, et al, speaks to directly.

We are grateful to Dr. Snodgrass for preserving the integrity of Faber and colleagues' contribution and for raising this correction in the spirit in which it was intended.