07/08/2012
The AMA's new medical ethics:
"Your doctor has been asked to look after the best interests of “society”, as well as you. The...politicians...decide...it is better to give government employees generous pension benefits than to fully fund the public health insurance program. Based upon the AMA guidelines, your physician tells you that there are two drugs that can be used to treat your condition that have comparable cure rates. One is more expensive, but it is associated with better compliance and fewer side effects. The cheaper one will address your problem, but you’ll probably feel sicker from the side effects and have a harder time taking it consistently. Your doctor tells you about both of them, including the fact that it’s more socially responsible to use the cheaper one. He explains that taking the cheaper one will allow more patients to be treated with the available insurance budget that the government insurer has decided upon. Having barely finished high school, the amount you know about medicines would fit into a thimble. You ask for his advice, and he recommends the cheaper one because it helps to promote equity and social justice.
How do you feel about your doctor now that he’s gone through this exercise? Do you still trust him? Is he looking out for what’s best for you, or what’s best for state employee pensions? How would you know?"
You have to hand it to the American Medical Association (AMA), it has a real talent for destroying the medical profession. Over time this aptitude has been turned to a variety of uses. In the late 1980s and early 1990s it was used to support the development and deployment of the RBRVS system of cod...