PROFESSIONAL DENIALIST DOCTORS: AUTONOMY, DECISION-MAKING, AND CARE IN PRESCRIBING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE DURING THE PANDEMIC

Abstract

Scientific denialism was the corollary of the dire proportions of the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil. It was widely embraced by the federal government at the time, expressing itself, among other things, in the prescription of controversial drugs such as hydroxychloroquine. In this scenario, some doctors championed the defense of this drug, instrumentalizing the legitimization of pseudoscientific rhetoric harmful to public health through medical authority. Given this context, the Senate established a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to investigate and hold those involved in these omissions accountable. This study analyzes four doctors in their CPI testimonies and their statements in the media defending hydroxychloroquine. The objective was to understand how they used supposedly scientific and clinical arguments to support denialist ideas that contradict scientific evidence. The argument used was about medical autonomy in decision-making in the treatment of Covid-19. Medical autonomy is a prerogative dear to medicine and its professional category and is integrated into the discourse of the far right from the perspective of defending individual freedom. The study concludes that it is not possible to understand scientific denialism in isolation from the political process.