Posted on 08/26/2009 7:37:35 PM PDT by St. Louis Conservative
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Great minds think alike! :) Seriously, he’d fit right in 1939 Germany. Form-fitting gray uniform, skull and crossbones, iron cross, swastika armband... all he needs is monocle or a swagger stick...
For what it is worth I have heard that doctors no longer take the Hippocratic oath upon graduation. Can any newly minted M.D. let us know?
I think it’s been replaced at some medical schools by some WHO pledge. A lot of universities don’t like the Hippocratic Oath because it speaks out against abortion and euthanasia.
I graduated from med school in 1993. The class took the WHO pledge, and it was printed in our Graduation Program. I recited the Hippocratic Oath during this.
Emanuel is a provocative thinker, but I think we cannot totally exclude a democratic element to the type of decision making he decries. If he is advocating that MD’s should think about every expenditure and deny some people care so the money can be spent with more “bang for the buck”, why not ask the people SUPPLYING these bucks how they want them spent? He acts as though scarce resources belong to everybody.
The market will never go away. Ask yourself the following question: Doctor A will treat me and conscientiously deny care to me if he thinks the money is better spent on someone else. Doctor B will move heaven & earth, through hell & high water, to take care of me no matter what. Which one will you choose?
By the way: I’m a Doctor B kind of doc....
That is an incredibly disturbing outlook by "Doctor" Emmanuel.
Who the hell would want a jerk with that attitude as their physician?
A society that truly valued freedom would never allow a man with that philosophy to wield any sort of political power. These aren't "progressive" attitudes, despite what the Left claims. This is a horribly regressive philosophy, and one with a very clear and deadly legacy.
bttt
But this leaves the door open for bureaucrats who are influenced by political coercion or beliefs to decide what constitutes the most 'bang for the buck'. If this doesn't appear that probable at first glance, just consider how the medical profession was corrupted and distorted under past socialist regimes such as Naziism and Communism.
A nihilistic homo and a disgrace to the Jews.
He would have served Hitler well.
I would hate to be his mother. She has had a complete life (he is in his late 40’s at least) so she gets NO care from her unloving son. What a jerk.
Agreed.
I somehow suspect, not sure why, that Zeke the Bleak will predecease me. Just a sort of hunch, dontchaknow.
You nailed it, and I agree with you 100%.
Here is my issue, apart from this guy E. Emanuel who has no shortage of public comments to let us know how he really thinks:
Barack Obama is a man who supported the concept of a failed abortion baby that was born alive and breathing being shoved in a linen closet and being forced to die alone, gasping on a stainless steel cart without even someone being allowed to be there to hold it or somehow comfort it.
I don’t want to turn this into an abortion issue, but...a person, and a party that allows, no, DEMANDS by law that a situation like that should occur, should in no way be allowed to engage in the process of health care.
I find it disturbing that someone like Emanuel is working with someone like Obama to push health care legislation. THAT is what I find disturbing.
concise piece. expresses the ezekiel problem very well.
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."Keep running your mouth, Zeke.
Don’t apologise for bringing abortion into the conversation-— Abortion (as well the prohibition against euthanasia) ARE part of the historical Hippocratic Oath:
“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
Zeke Emmanuel is no “doctor” in my book.
So this is what it comes down to. Government run God committees will decide who gets access to the scarce medical resource and who doesn’t.
Economists have asked how best to allocate scarce resources, and (the bright ones) have concluded - let the market decide.
Why shouldn’t the market decide who gets access to scarce medical resources? Sure, it would mean that only those who could afford the expensive treatments would get them. Only the best (and most expensive) insurance plans would cover the costs.
At first consideration, allocation based on who can pay might seem “unfair” or “uncharitable” or even “unChristian”. But what’s the alternative?
The alternative is what Emmanuel proposes. Allocation by government run committees based on a physical characteristic over which one has no control - age. At least if the allocation is based on cost an individual concerned about having access to quality medical care can decide to allocate more of his wealth towards that, than say, trips to Vegas or Alaskan cruises. At least a person of modest means can save for that “rainy day” when he or his family needs the expensive treatment.
But if the decision is based on some government committee’s conclusion of who is most worthy, then can’t we see how this will play out? Sure, base it on age. But what about race? We can’t have too many white people get access to the resource, crowding out blacks, can we? Don’t we also have to make sure access is gender neutral? How long before there will be a mathematical formula that computers will be able to spit out to give us each a “medical access score” which will determine our worthiness to gain access to health care?
But there is another, more fundamental reason for letting the market decide. The market is not only the best way to allocate scarce resources, it’s the best way to reduce the scarcity of the valued resources. If a treatment option is scarce, and thus expensive, the chance at profits will encourage competition, which will lead to additional options, which will reduce costs and increase availability.
Of course there will have to be other free market reforms. Like patent law. Patent protection isn’t a construct of the free market, it’s a construct of government. Why should the first guy to figure something out get seven years of government enforced protection from competition? If another guy figures it out, why shouldn’t that guy be able to compete? Without patent law, defenders say, there would be no incentive to innovate. BS. Patent law is one big reason that costs are high for those protected drugs and devices.
To fix the health care system we need to open it up to market oriented reforms. It’s obvious to anybody who takes the time to understand basic economics.
Where are the politicians making this case? It seems that all we have is the choice between socialism and socialism-lite.
The conservative side desperately needs to start producing some politicians who can effectively articulate free market principles and their benefits. It ain’t all that hard. I’m just a technology manager and I can figure it out.
If conservatives don’t soon educate themselves - don’t force their politicians towards free market, TRULY free market solutions, we’ll soon all be serfs!
Maybe ‘Zeke should change his name to Josef Mengele.
Then he can figuratively stand and point right or left as patients approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.