Danielle Roberts, in Plainview NY, trying to practice medicine, hounded by her branding women

I called the Plainview hospital Administration offices and talked to a woman who looked up her name on the computer and she stated that Ms. Roberts DID fill out an application but did not complete the interview process and emphatically stated that she is not employed at the facility. She seemed quite interested and elated to know that the person applying for that job was the NXIVM brander.

I said the same thing to @FrankReport on twatter and he ignored me. Take of it what you will folks but this story is debunked.

Parlato you slimey son of a fuck

I noticed that in that photo with the caption saying “we’re at an expo” implying she should be left alone about NXIVM controversies, an exo/eso t-shirt can be seen behind Roberts. So she was at an event, promoting a NXIVM front group intended to funnel people into the main organization.

Oh, and that reminds me of another ethical problem for her: if she makes commissions off of people she recruits into NXIVM, then she should be disclosing her role as a paid representative who stands to profit – and deserves to be called to account if she is not being transparent about that.

Good points. It’s a fraught situation when it comes down to ethical analysis, though.

To me, the biggest issue is that seems that Roberts may still be recruiting for NXIVM through its front groups given the photo currently being used on the Navel Expo website, possibly even for DOS, and so conceivably even seeking underage women to feed Raniere’s predilections should he be free again. So unless she denounces Raniere’s and the group’s pedophilia in particular, I think it’s fair to take steps to publicize her affiliation and inform the public, as she is not someone who should be trusted to be alone with young women.

An interesting question is whether DOS could actually have found someone else to brand members, if Roberts hadn’t been available. Professional body modification artists, generally more commonly known as tattooists and piercers, often also do what is called scarification, in some cases using the exact same equipment that Roberts did. Knowing a bit about their practices and ethics, I think most would have refused to work under the conditions that Roberts did, with an unsanitary environment, and people holding the subject down. And if women had been sent instead to their place of business for the same marks in a sensitive place, a professional might have become uncomfortable with the large number coming through – and could well have even thought to call the authorities to investigate possible sex trafficking, concerned that perhaps they were putting pimps’ marks on women being prostituted, which tells us something. More tellingly, a professional would have fully explained the procedure and its implications in advance, and required fully informed consent to be documented, which Roberts not only did not do, but if reports are correct, contravened by participating in deceiving the subjects about exactly what was to be done to them – so I’m not entirely sure why Roberts hasn’t been subject to some sort of regulatory or legal action over the branding. If women were branded without proper consent, Roberts could (or should) be sued, and at trial the issue that as a medical professional she should have known better, would definitely be relevant, if not even powerfully damning.

So a case could certainly be made that if Roberts didn’t follow the sort of professional guidelines that a body modification artist would likely have thought to, then that has implications for her judgment when practicing medicine. I was once asked to provide an informal consultation in a medical malpractice case, where I had run into the doctor socially, and knew her as just the sort of hardcore athletic type that NXIVM and DOS seemed to attract quite a few of. I thought it was pretty clear that in that case, the doctor’s personal tough-it-out attitude had bled into her medical practice and clouded her judgment, with tragic consequences.

On a final, more subtle point, Sarah Edmondson’s account including her wording of “Dr. Danielle Roberts is a medical doctor” implies that Roberts’ status as a physician may have lent some legitimacy to the branding process, and helped to allay the questions of those being led into it under conditions of questionable consent. She wasn’t just a lady with a cautery pen, her professional credentials were being leveraged implicitly if not explicitly, whether with or without her awareness of it, and that is troublesome.

I’m not sure that it’s generally justifiable to hound Roberts forever merely as a way to punish her for things she did outside of a professional context, that the medical board and legal system has not, or has yet, addressed. However, until she at least renounces the worst practices of NXIVM and DOS, I do think there are legitimate grounds for calling her to account. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s such a clear-cut case, but she’s certainly vulnerable to being called out on some specific points that may be relevant.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone has other ethical issues they think are relevant.

After all, she was not practicing as a physician when she branded the women.
“What she does in her private time is her own business,” I believe is what one state official said in response to why she did not lose her license. “You don’t need to be a physician to perform scarification [branding].”

So a doctor is only held accountable for their work in a hospital, clinic or doctor’s office? So if they decide to practice medicine out of their garage or out of the back of a van, they won’t get in any trouble because they’re on their own time? Of course they would face consequences! A doctor should never be allowed to get away with deliberately causing harm to a person and branding someone without any pain meds is barbaric.

First, do no harm. As an important step in becoming a doctor…… I DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT “OFF THE CLOCK” EXEMPTIONS ?

And liberty plucks justice by the nose