Friday, May 01, 2009

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?

No wonder Obama wants his power grab, euphemistically called, "health care reform," through the Congress without any meaningful debate.

Labels:

14 Comments:

At May 02, 2009 , Blogger enness said...

Our government should be the first to have its feeding tube removed, because it's getting too damn expensive!
"When in the course of human events..."

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger HistoryWriter said...

Wesley: You appear scandalized over something the insurance industry has been doing for years. Where were your complaints when insurance carriers routinely denied payment for care they considered "too expensive" or "experimental"? Oh yes, the "experimental" excuse included expensive treatments that the medical profession considered routine. So where were your protests then?

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger William said...

I don't know what sounds scarier: Socialized medicine, or bureaucratic medicine.

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger holyterror said...

I don't know about Wesley, but I and other who share these views HAVE BEEN complaining to anyone who would listen about the closing stranglehold of insurance on medicine.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock02may02,0,5246351.column

This column seems to openly agitate for a taxpayer-driven movement to ration health care to older people.

(Meanwhile, we spend ridiculous amounts of money intervening in healthy births... an insurance company-driven reality that goes in the other direction)

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger victor said...

Hey Wesley, for what it's worth, I think you're trying to do a good job at trying but there's no way that any ONE of us will ever succeed by ourself but of course we keep trying cause what else can we do?

I just hope that there really is a God in heaven who really did say in so many words. Good Work now go and get your reward!

I hear ya Wesley! As usual, your comment is worth two Canadian cents Victor! :)

If that's the way you feel then go and party while I pray to Our Blessed Lady asking Her to make sure that our future does not turn into an 'Old Bomb Ma' at least until I'm out of here.

Oh yes almost forgot to salt your station, I mean your salutation! Now go and have fun cause you've earned "IT".

Peace and God Bless

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Victor: I get your point! But we are not alone. There are many of us working to gether. But I hear you! Peace and God bless.

History Writer: The insurance industry has pushed in that direction, and people like my pal Ralph Nader and others have pushed back. We push back here with regard to futile care and there are lawyers ready and waiting to sue the heck out of any hospital that seeks to imposed it. \But when the government gets into this game, we are all in big trouble, because it will enable both private and public sectors alike to legally create a duty to die.

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger victor said...

Hey when you say that we are working to get her, are you talking about EVE?

I hear ya Wesley! You're losing me again Victor!!!

Ok! If you insist on being such a crouch then they'll be no salutation this time.:)

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

William: Try economic fascist medicine, defined as "As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer." That seems to me to be where Obama is going.

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Victor: I've never been called a crouch before. How did you know?

It's "All About Eve," Victor.

Piece!

 
At May 02, 2009 , Blogger Lydia McGrew said...

Right, some insurance companies are less bad about this than others, but when it's the gov. requiring rationing, then nobody--including the ins. companies and the doctors--has any choice.

 
At May 02, 2009 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the insurance companies are the ones doing the denying, patients still have the ability to opt to pay. If we go the way of socialized/nationalized/universal/single payer/whatever-pretty-word-you'd-like health care, people will lose that chance. If my insurance company denies something my doctor and I deem necessary, I pay for it. If my government denies something my doctor and I deem necessary, it doesn't happen.

 
At May 03, 2009 , Blogger Jason said...

It always surprises me to watch people cut their own throats like this.

Why do people always assume that they will be the ones to make the rules ?

 
At May 03, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

From what I've seen most of them don't deserve that much benefit of the doubt. They're not just being pushed; they're part of the whole thing. They went into it for the money; their parents wanted them to be "successful"; they don't know how to think; their values are skewed; they think they're smarter than other people and they're skewed; when it comes down to it their careers and their own interests and their finances matter more to them than the patients do. And society has allowed it. Yes the insurance companies and the rest of it are trouble but the doctors are part of it, don't let them slide on it.

 
At May 05, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Wesley: Where are those lawyers? I know a hospital that seems never to have heard of them.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home