This has been in the headlines in Southern California but not picking up much attention elsewhere. Opinions on the matter seem to be split between “none of our business” and “heads should roll”.
It seems he continued to perform well in his professional life, despite his extracurricular activities. More concerning is the apparent cover up or blind eye cast by the Pasadena police officer who responded to the overdose call and the USC President’s office which didn’t act on the tips regarding the incident.
The headline was deceiving, when I read the headline I assumed this was about someone who had some kind of wild sex life or whatnot, was into orgies, swinging, etc, or something like that…and I would argue that had nothing to do with his position at the school.
On the other hand, being a drug user like that impacted his job directly, this wasn’t finding out the Dean used pot at home, these were illegal drugs that indicate among other things he was addicted to them, and that directly impacted the job. Some may say this is private behavior, is a moral judgement, but that is not where I am coming from, someone this fouled up, who brought the drugging and partying to his office alone is grounds for dismissal, not to mention that he likely is an addict to boot. Likely had this come out when he was the dean, he would have given a tearful statement about how he was an addict and needed treatment and given the law, would likely be sent to rehab and such before he could be fired because it was drug related.
If people in the school were covering for him, on the other hand, then they should be fired, if they knew he had this kind of drug problem and turned a blind eye, didn’t confront him about it, at the very least put him on some sort of probation pending treatment, then they should be fired.
Things are a little more nuanced than that. The drug use clearly did not have a negative effect on his work as a dean, since he was one of the most successful medical school deans in the country. As far as I know, when it comes to fundraising, faculty recruitment, and budgeting, there are no rules about performance-enhancing drugs, and the results he achieved were outstanding.
Of course, things are different when it comes to patient care as a doctor. But the article doesn’t have any information about problems with patients during the period of his known drug use, and I bet anything the reporters looked hard to find some. We’ll know in a few weeks for sure – anyone with any sort of complication from surgery he performed (or didn’t perform) will be suing ASAP.
I’m not suggesting that USC administrators or Pasadena police did the right thing by looking the other way. Actually, the university administrators seem to have acted very quickly to remove him as dean. They just didn’t shame him publicly. And they allowed him to keep treating patients, which is hard to understand, unless they had assurances from him that the drug use had stopped and would not resume. I note that the article does not include any evidence that he continued his drug use after he resigned as dean, although it’s hard to imagine he really stopped cold turkey.
Anyway, the fact of the matter is that lots of illegal drug users are very successful, very functional people. The drugs are dangerous, they destroy lives, but they don’t destroy every life right away. Some people go a long, long time without suffering meaningful adverse consequences. The world would be a simpler place if that were not the case.
The medical profession definitely has its share of addicts due in part to the rigors of the field, plus access to drugs. But you’ll find addicts among many successful people.
I know a big time academic who was drug addict, and high level corporate executive addicted to cocaine
Two incidents cited in the article made me less inclined toward sympathy toward Puliafito. He brought methamphetamine to an addict who was living in a sober living facility at the time, and he facilitated the use of illegal drugs by the 17 year old brother of his girlfriend. People debate whether the ethical standards required of a person in their job extend to their private lives, but someone who is a doctor (or any medical professional) knows better than most the seriousness and consequences of drug addiction.
The Times began investigating the story at about the time the drug overdose incident was reported to the USC president’s office, so USC knew that the story would eventually become public. Yet for almost a year they did nothing to separate themselves from Puliafito, aside from allowing him to resign his position as dean of the med school. Baffling. If it weren’t for the investigative journalism of the LA Times none of this would have become public and he would still be treating patients.
Wow. Reading the story, I am horrified that Carmen Puliafito blatently lied to first responders when they arrived at the hotel room and told them that the woman he was with had only been drinking alcohol, when he knew that to be untrue. To me, that took his extremely disturbing behavior to an even more distressing level, and could have impacted the treatment she was provided. Shame on him.
This happens from time to time. 3 decades ago a similar story appeared about William Douglas at my alma mater, the renowned Tufts University School of Medicine. It happens.
There are a lot of functioning addicts out there, and in the financial industry drug use is not exactly unknown, back in the day on exchange floors and the like there were plenty of people using all kinds of things.
That said, there are all kinds of reasons why this guy should have been taken care of much earlier. The fact that someone using drugs is able to do their job isn’t much of an excuse, the problem is someone like this is a walking time bomb, if for example he was addicted to Meth, and is treating patients, how long would it be before he has that accident induced by drug use? Or because of drugs, does something really, really horrible, and hurts other people? More importantly, the liability of a guy like this extends well beyond him being drugged up and screwing up a patient, what happens to the school’s reputation if his behavior becomes known? Will donors want to give money to a school that had someone who was a meth addict running it? Are they going to give money to a school that knowingly covered up such behavior? There is a lot of liability to having someone like this around.
I can tell you, too, that a lot of companies don’t overlook the drug culture in places like silicon valley or in the financial industry because unlike past decades when it was considered “part of the culture”, it is just too risky. A drugged up trader can lose millions in a matter of moments, a drugged up employee can end up sexually harassing employees or worse, especially when it is high up executives, and unlike past decades they can’t count on this being covered up, they would face tremendous lawsuits and likely criminal prosecution as well , at least on the state level (not so sure about the federal level these days). It will be interesting to see if USC sees repurcussions for this, if donors and such question whether it is worthwhile giving them money.
I predict the USC president will lose his job over this. It’s taken way too long for this action to be taken and for him to speak out–and the phone call to the presidents’ office after the woman’s overdose is highly suspicious. I don’t think college presidents can survive this kind of stuff–here in Southern California, this is a major story. My guess is the Times will win a Pulitzer for their coverage. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-usc-dean-drugs-investigation-20170721-story.html