The government attack on doctors has turned nasty.
Richard Ralston has an op-ed on it in the Orange County Register.
Reprinted below:
The debate on health care reform is starting to turn ugly. Those
who want to increase government power to rule American medicine
are adding physicians to their list of "enemies of the people." We
hear frequently that insurers and drug companies are inefficient and
greedy businesses that must be replaced by efficient, enlightened
and compassionate government bureaucracies. Now doctors are
coming under attack for daring to resist government attempts to tell
them how to practice medicine.
In an editorial last month in the New York Times, readers were
told, "Doctors have been complicit in driving up health care costs."
"Complicit" is an ominous term, often used in a legal or criminal
context. Such language is obviously intended to intimidate
physicians into submission.
How are doctors "complicit" in rising costs? The Times tells us
they are to blame because "doctors largely decide what medical or
surgical treatments are needed," which makes many of them
"unabashed profiteers."
Such a statement provides two keys to understanding the debate on
health care reform.
The first and most obvious is that reform advocates in government
want the legal power to prevent doctors from deciding "what
medical or surgical treatments are needed." They think that role
must be reserved for politicians and government officials.
Physicians must not be allowed to prescribe a drug if the
government decides it helps only some but not all patients and is
thus not "comparatively effective."
Physicians must conform to new government "protocols" in
providing treatment, not their own judgment. If they do not, the
government will make them more liable to malpractice suits for not
doing it the government way. They are now forced to computerize
their patients' medical records and turn them over to the
government - without the patients' permission - to better help the
government supervise their practice.
Also revealed by the Times' editorial is the attempt to disarm
doctors morally and politically so they will do what they are told.
Any attempt to protect their ability to practice medicine as they
think best will just prove that they are greedy profiteers, like
businessmen. Anyone who makes a living or runs a profitable
business that does not need to be bailed out by the government may
be condemned.
Conversely, greed for power is a saintly virtue for those who want
to instruct physicians how to run their practices.
From other quarters we hear arguments that doctors should just do
what they are told and accept what the government pays them, even
if it does not cover their costs, because they owe us all for their
medical education. Never mind the huge debts with which most
MD's graduate from medical school. Never mind the long years and
long hours of medical education and internship. If they went to a
public school, never mind the taxes their parents paid to support it.
If the government gives you an education, these politicians say that
you owe that government your life. Are we now discovering the
true purpose of government-controlled education?
Doctors are probably coming under attack now because even the
American Medical Association - not known in recent years for its
resistance to government incursion in medicine - is showing a bit of
backbone in opposing proposals such as a new "public option" for
medical insurance. The AMA is to be encouraged. If physicians do
not take a stand to defend their rights to their own lives, their
careers and their freedom to practice medicine, and, yes, to decide
with their patients "what medical or surgical treatments are
needed," who will?
We will not preserve our freedoms or our health if we as physicians
and patients surrender our rights to politicians in return for their
promises to take care of us.
Richard Ralston
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
Reprinted below:
The debate on health care reform is starting to turn ugly. Those
who want to increase government power to rule American medicine
are adding physicians to their list of "enemies of the people." We
hear frequently that insurers and drug companies are inefficient and
greedy businesses that must be replaced by efficient, enlightened
and compassionate government bureaucracies. Now doctors are
coming under attack for daring to resist government attempts to tell
them how to practice medicine.
In an editorial last month in the New York Times, readers were
told, "Doctors have been complicit in driving up health care costs."
"Complicit" is an ominous term, often used in a legal or criminal
context. Such language is obviously intended to intimidate
physicians into submission.
How are doctors "complicit" in rising costs? The Times tells us
they are to blame because "doctors largely decide what medical or
surgical treatments are needed," which makes many of them
"unabashed profiteers."
Such a statement provides two keys to understanding the debate on
health care reform.
The first and most obvious is that reform advocates in government
want the legal power to prevent doctors from deciding "what
medical or surgical treatments are needed." They think that role
must be reserved for politicians and government officials.
Physicians must not be allowed to prescribe a drug if the
government decides it helps only some but not all patients and is
thus not "comparatively effective."
Physicians must conform to new government "protocols" in
providing treatment, not their own judgment. If they do not, the
government will make them more liable to malpractice suits for not
doing it the government way. They are now forced to computerize
their patients' medical records and turn them over to the
government - without the patients' permission - to better help the
government supervise their practice.
Also revealed by the Times' editorial is the attempt to disarm
doctors morally and politically so they will do what they are told.
Any attempt to protect their ability to practice medicine as they
think best will just prove that they are greedy profiteers, like
businessmen. Anyone who makes a living or runs a profitable
business that does not need to be bailed out by the government may
be condemned.
Conversely, greed for power is a saintly virtue for those who want
to instruct physicians how to run their practices.
From other quarters we hear arguments that doctors should just do
what they are told and accept what the government pays them, even
if it does not cover their costs, because they owe us all for their
medical education. Never mind the huge debts with which most
MD's graduate from medical school. Never mind the long years and
long hours of medical education and internship. If they went to a
public school, never mind the taxes their parents paid to support it.
If the government gives you an education, these politicians say that
you owe that government your life. Are we now discovering the
true purpose of government-controlled education?
Doctors are probably coming under attack now because even the
American Medical Association - not known in recent years for its
resistance to government incursion in medicine - is showing a bit of
backbone in opposing proposals such as a new "public option" for
medical insurance. The AMA is to be encouraged. If physicians do
not take a stand to defend their rights to their own lives, their
careers and their freedom to practice medicine, and, yes, to decide
with their patients "what medical or surgical treatments are
needed," who will?
We will not preserve our freedoms or our health if we as physicians
and patients surrender our rights to politicians in return for their
promises to take care of us.
Richard Ralston
Americans for Free Choice in Medicine
0 comments:
Post a Comment