In his letter to the editor on October 31st, Dr. Charles Littlejohn, who is treasurer of a PAC addresses the risks that doctors face when they become politically involved.

He is right to point out that inaction holds greater risk than involvement. However, he fails to address the real issues of risk. The first risk is presenting views in a manner that may alienate lawmakers, voters and patients.

In many professions, it is inappropriate for a practitioner to express a political viewpoint in ones working environment. I have enjoyed talking with teachers and policemen about their political viewpoints but I would be offended if I saw an on-duty policeman wearing a button supporting one candidate or a teacher at school wearing a button for another candidate.

So, it is not a surprise that many people are complaining about the advertisements for specific candidates that Dr. Littlejohn’s PAC has placed in numerous doctor’s waiting rooms around Stamford.

The second risk is of having a poorly thought out political agenda and supporting candidates or policies that may be worse for the doctors than the current policies. Dr. Littlejohn’s PAC has been publishing vicious attack ads in favor of a candidate that is opposed to PACs, yet he fails to see the irony and hypocrisy of this. Nor do supporters of the PAC appear to appreciate the irony of their ads for a candidate that opposes women’s reproductive rights appearing in the offices of obstetricians.

Dr. Littlejohn’s PAC has made poor choices in adopting a simplified approach to malpractice reform focusing on caps on non-economic damages. One can see why the American Medical Students Association opposes such choices.

Dr. Littlejohn is right. The risk of political inaction is great for doctors. However, the risk of ill thought out action is even greater.