Pushing Doctors into a "Dual Mandate" and
the "Attack on Doctors' Hippocratic Oath"
Physicians are being pushed steadily into an untenable position. On one
hand, they are professionally obligated to render optimal care to each
patient based on individual need. On the other hand, they are
increasingly being looked to by bureaucrats and bioethicists as serving
another role--for society--as the rationing arms of cost control.
The effect of this would require doctors to give optimal care to some
patients but not others, probably based on mandatory invidiously
discriminatory categories of age, disability, perhaps even politically
incorrect lifestyles such as smoking and obesity (but never, for
example culturally acceptable risky behaviors like promiscuity). This
dual mandate, if adopted, would place doctors and other health care
professionals in a terrible conflict of interest--duty to patient
versus duty to society--carrying with it the real potential to tear
health care apart.
The Hudson Institute's Betsy McCaughey has noticed and raised the alarm
in an important column in Investors Business Daily, entitled "Attack on
Doctors' Hippocratic Oath." From the column:
Patients count on their doctor to do whatever is
possible to treat
their illness. That is the promise doctors make by taking the
Hippocratic Oath. But President Obama's advisers are looking to save
money by interfering with that oath and controlling your doctor's
decisions.
Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one
factor driving
"overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the
president's chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel argues that "peer recognition
goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians." He has lamented
that doctors regard the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power
to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment' as an
imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or
effects on others."
So yet another core patient protection in the Oath is under attack.
This is nothing less than the deprofessionalizing of medicine, and
turning physicians into health care technocrats.
McCaughey continues:
But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in
the nation's
health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor's
decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The legislation sets a
goal that every individual's treatments will be recorded by computer,
and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on
"appropriate" and "cost-effective" care.
Translation: Health care rationing; futile care impositions, assisted
suicide--always cost effective; and a "duty to die" if your care
becomes too expensive.
This is not alarmism:
Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a
Harvard Medical
School professor, named national coordinator of health information
technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care
people can get. "... Now that Blumenthal is in charge, he sees problems
ahead. "If electronic health records are to save money," he writes,
doctors will have to take "advantage of embedded clinical decision
support" (a euphemism for computers instructing doctors what to do).
At which point medicine will cease to be a profession, as I mentioned
above. And it will come at a great costs to individuals:
In critiquing the Hippocratic Oath, Dr. Emanuel
calls for training
medical students "to move toward more socially sustainable,
cost-effective care." He says the trend "from 'do everything' to
palliative care shows that change in physician norms is possible." What
he fails to see is that government should not be interfering in
decisions about when it's time to say enough is enough to medical care.
McCaughey is spot on and her critique illustrates a truth I have only
recently fully comprehended: The political Left isn't about freedom, it
is about power. And what greater power is there than bureaucrats and
utilitarian bioethicists deciding whether you are treated or denied
care, indeed, whether you live or die?
Contact: Wesley J. Smith
Source: WesleyJSmith.com
Publish
Date: May 4, 2009
Link
to this article.
Send
this article to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.
|