Podcast:

From the ominously-titled book, “New Rules,” by Donald Berwick MD and Troyen Brennan MD:

“Today, this isolated relationship [between doctor and patient] is no longer tenable or possible. . . Traditional medical ethics, based on the doctor-patient dyad, must be reformulated to fit the new mold of the delivery of health care. . . The primary function of regulation in health care…is to constrain decentralized individualized decision making.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Berwick’s straightforward formulation of the appropriate role of the individual physician in our reformed healthcare system is not isolated to thinkers of the Progressive persuasion. The notion that most clinical decisions can be usefully made by a centralized authority is attractive even to some conservatives.

For example, a few years ago the noted economist Arnold Kling strongly defended the idea. “My own view is that a remote third party probably can use statistical evidence to make good recommendations for a course of treatment.”

Now, Kling is no far-left radical, pushing for centralized control of healthcare (and everything else). Indeed, he is now with the Cato Institute, and before that he taught economics at George Mason University. So he has earned his conservative and/or libertarian chops.

And to be fair, he is not really calling here for “remote third parties” to have final authority on what’s best for individual patients. Rather, he thinks patients should make that decision for themselves, weighing the recommendations of data-driven guidelines promulgated by remote experts, against the ego-toss’d recommendations from their all-too-fallible doctors, or, as Kling sarcastically refers to them, their “heroic personal saviors.” (Such sarcasm, regular readers will know, is as abhorrent to DrRich as it probably is to you.) Kling is saying: trust patients, armed with good evidence-based recommendations handed down from experts, to make the right decisions for themselves.

In concept even DrRich supports this latter notion. Indeed, a chief theme of this blog has been that doctors have been coerced into such a compromised position by the government and the insurance carriers that wise patients will no longer simply trust their doctors’ advice explicitly. As things now stand, patients who place full reliance on their doctors, assuming that they’ll get all the information they need to make good medical decisions, are putting themselves in peril. Smart patients will seek out all the information they can about their own medical conditions, so they can confirm that their doctors are indeed presenting them with all their reasonable options, and so they can more intelligently evaluate those options. And certainly, expert-endorsed guidelines would be an important part of that research.

But Kling’s remedy – that patients rely on the treatment recommendations made by expert panels as a remedy to the conflicted advice being doled out by their own doctors – is seriously flawed.

The first flaw, of course, is the idea that remote third parties, wielding evidence-based data, can make good treatment recommendations for individual patients. Evidence-based guidelines, almost by definition, are designed to improve the average outcome across a population of individuals, and are specifically designed not to optimize outcomes for each individual within that population.

Second, Kling apparently assumes that the remote third parties who are producing evidence-based treatment recommendations will be acting in a completely objective and unbiased manner. But this can never be the case. A major theme of the Covert Rationing Blog this past year has been to demonstrate that a) clinical science is probably the least exact of the sciences; b) the design and interpretation of clinical studies is inevitably attended by significant bias; and c) therefore, no matter who is producing them – whether it is medical professionals or GOD panelists (Government Operatives Deliberating) – these guidelines will always be produced with a particular agenda in mind. To assume that such agendas will be primarily – or even remotely – related to optimizing the outcomes of individual patients will often be a serious error.

Third, the idea that patients, even very intelligent patients armed with “perfect information,” can by themselves reliably sort through the morass of conflicting evidence and conflicting opinions that invariably inform any set of clinical recommendations (whether made by vaunted teams of completely objective experts from on-high, or by one’s inherently flawed, conflicted and ego-driven personal physician) is simply false. This would be the case even if the healthcare system were perfectly aligned to help patients. Which, of course, it is not. (It is aligned to affect the covert rationing of healthcare.)

Finally, while the advice patients get from their doctors is indeed biased, more and more it is biased (thanks to heavy-handed coercion) in favor of those same central authorities that are commissioning the expert panels.

As a result, patients – especially when they are sick and least able to fend for themselves – are generally incapable of negotiating the gratuitous complexities and hidden hazards laid out before them by a hostile healthcare system, a system which silently prays they will, in frustration, just go buy themselves some alternative medicine remedy, then crawl under a bush and die while contemplating their qi. Indeed, patients are as incapable of successfully navigating such a system as are accused felons of navigating a complex and hostile legal system that’s bent on sending them away for 15-20 years.

It is for this very reason that accused felons are assigned an advocate, an individual who is ethically and legally obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the legal hazards, to do everything possible to see they are treated fairly, and that they are given every reasonable chance to prove their innocence. Lawyers, as much as we physicians might like to castigate them, are absolutely critical to a civil society.

And this is the reason why patients (according to traditional, though now quaint, medical ethics) are also supposed to have a personal advocate, an individual who is obligated to take their part, to help them navigate all the medical hazards, to do everything possible to see that they are treated fairly and that all available medical options are made open to them, and that they are given every reasonable chance of a good clinical outcome. Patients, in other words, need doctors who are devoted to the classic precepts of their profession. Such doctors, as much as Kling and others might like to diminish their importance, are also absolutely critical to a civil society.

But, as we have seen, and as has been publicly celebrated by Dr. Berwick and others, severing the classic doctor-patient relationship has been Job One under our system of covert rationing – whether that rationing is managed by insurance companies or by the government. Doctors simply cannot be allowed any longer to place their patients first. They’ve got to place the needs of their true masters first. They’ve got to keep the government and the insurers happy or they’re out of a job. They are no longer permitted to tailor clinical choices to best fit their individual patients, but they are simply to apply treatment directives as they are handed down by (from now on, government-appointed) panels of experts.

And this brings us back to Kling. DrRich of course agrees with his notion that patients ought to be armed with the high-quality information they need to determine their own medical destiny. DrRich can even agree that relying solely on the information provided by today’s doctor is generally not advisable. But DrRich cannot agree with the reason it’s not advisable. Doctors aren’t so much inherently flawed by ego and other intrinsic character flaws (at least, no more than any other group of humans), as they are operating under duress, under imposed constraints, and under external coercions that systematically and purposefully prevent them from discharging their professional obligations.

Nor can DrRich agree with Kling’s proposed solution. No centralized set of recommendations, evidence-based or not, can fix this problem for patients – especially when the expert bodies that make those recommendations are controlled by the same entities that have, with malice aforethought, killed the medical profession for the express purpose of stripping patients of their advocates, and therefore, of their medical options.

DrRich has trouble seeing a solution to this problem that is not radical. He does not see how doctors can resume their rightful place as their patients’ advocates and remain in what has become of the traditional healthcare system. Perhaps enough doctors to make a difference will leave the traditional healthcare system, shedding themselves of the third parties who now control their behavior, and re-establishing their practices (and revitalizing their profession) with a new commitment to the doctor-patient relationship. If not, then perhaps some brand new profession will establish itself (call it “personal healthcare advocates”) to fill the great void that threatens the safety of every American patient.

So yes, let individual patients weigh all the evidence and choose the healthcare option that suits them best. But unless they have a personal advocate to help them navigate the morass of biased choices – whether that advocate is their PCP like it’s supposed to be, or some new variety of professional advocate – those options will be limited to whatever healthcare is deemed best by the central planners.

A fine economist such as Dr. Kling should realize that a remote third party can no more make good recommendations for individual patients trying to survive in the rough and tumble of the healthcare system, than can a remote third party make good recommendations for individual businesses trying to compete in the rough and tumble of the marketplace. It is one thing for Progressives to hold to such a notion. It is far more disturbing to see respected conservative thinkers doing so.

Podcast:

Q. What’s the difference between a public health expert and an incompetent doctor?
A. An incompetent doctor tends to kill only one person at a time.

The deep recession and jobless “recovery” which we have enjoyed in the U.S. for going on three years now was triggered by the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing bubble was created by lending practices that awarded “subprime” mortgages to people with bad credit ratings, and offered to people with good credit ratings adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) that enticed them to purchase more expensive homes than they could afford.

Traditionally, banks were always reluctant to award mortgages, of any flavor, to people who obviously could not afford them, since doing so would wreck their businesses. The reason the banks began making bad loans in the 1990s is that new government policies, chiefly the Community Reinvestment Act, strongly “encouraged” them to.

The banks, being businesses, reacted logically to the new regulatory climate, to threats by ACORN and other activist groups, and to the escape hatch opened for them by the government which allowed them to turn over their toxic mortgages immediately to Fanny and Freddie.  Banks quickly began turning out as many questionable mortgages as they could write, to as many uncreditworthy individuals as they could find.

Fannie and Freddie, in turn, securitized all those bad loans into complex investment instruments, which they released into the general worldwide marketplace. Investors around the world were happy to take these questionable new instruments since Fannie and Freddie, tacitly at least, were backed by the United States government.

And so, when the unqualified homeowners, who never had any prayer of making long-term payments on their mortgages to begin with, proceeded (at the very first and gentlest whiff of a recession) to default on their loans, the whole structure rapidly collapsed, nearly causing a global financial Armageddon.

Thank goodness us U.S taxpayers “volunteered” to clean up the whole mess with our taxes and those of our children and grandchildren.

There’s plenty of blame to go around for causing the mortgage crisis. We can blame all those people agreeing to mortgages they could not afford, the banks pushing mortgage deals on people who clearly did not understand what they were getting into, and Fannie and Freddie infecting the worldwide investment structure with toxic instruments. But the root cause was bad government policy.

Establishing policies that compelled banks to award mortgages to people who could not afford them (in order to advance the noble goal of creating a nation of homeowners) may seem like a compassionate thing to do. But the laws of economics are like the laws of nature. You can’t change them by government fiat. All you can do by fiat is to get people to behave in new and possibly unpredictable ways. And when those irreducible economic laws finally come around to assert themselves, you will be surprised, and likely dismayed, by the result.

As it turns out, setting health policy can have much the same kind of result. If you fail to pay sufficient attention to certain irreducible laws of nature – such as the laws of human behavior, and the laws of human physiology – you may not get the effect you are looking for (or, at least, not the effect you say you are looking for).

And this brings us to the obesity crisis.

Whether or not you agree that obesity is a “crisis” in the U.S., or even that mild to moderate obesity is the medical disaster it’s often painted to be, you’ve got to admit that Americans have gotten substantially fatter over the past few decades. And whether or not our increased corpulence is a grave threat to life and limb, it is creating an opportunity for the government to seize control over our individual freedoms – so it is, in fact, an important phenomenon.

DrRich is not the first to suggest that the public health policies of that very government substantially contributed to our obesity crisis. But as we enter a new era of Progressive healthcare, in which medicine is going to be practiced by policy fiats instead of by individual decision-making, it serves us to remind ourselves just how much the obesity crisis is tied to the great push, instigated by government policies dating back to the 1970s, for everyone to eat low-fat diets.

An association between dietary fats and coronary artery disease was first noted in the 1950s. In 1957, the American Heart Association (AHA) published its first, tentative recommendations for limiting the consumption of saturated fat. The recommendations were specifically aimed only at people who had strong genetic predisposition to heart attacks or strokes, or who already had heart disease. An accompanying editorial by Herbert Pollack, in the August, 1957 issue of Circulation, specifically warned against the widespread application of the recommendation to avoid saturated fat:

“Altering the dietary habits of a large population group is fraught with a great many dangers. Our knowledge of nutrition is not sufficient at this time to anticipate what ultimate results would happen if the public were encouraged to alter radically their basic dietary patterns.”

The AHA’s recommendations regarding saturated fat in the diet received sparse attention for 20 years. Then in 1977 (during arguably the second most Progressive administration in our history), the Senate’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, chaired by George McGovern, nationalized the question of fat avoidance. After holding a series of hearings which tied fat consumption to heart disease, the Committee published the first “Dietary Goals in the United States,” advising all Americans to cut back on fat consumption. With this report, the US government officially supported low-fat diets for everyone.  (The public then was judged to be just as stupid as we are judged to be today, so any real effort to distinguish between unhealthy fats and healthy fats was quickly set aside. “Fat is bad” is a message you can sell even to gun-toting Bible-thumpers.)

The anti-fat boulder got a great big push down the hill in 1983, when the Framingham study published a landmark paper tagging obesity as an important risk factor for cardiac disease. Because eating a diet high in fat obviously caused obesity, it seemed self-evident that low-fat diets would prevent heart disease both directly, and indirectly (by preventing obesity).

Accordingly, in 1984 the NIH issued a Consensus Statement entitled “Lowering Blood Cholesterol to Prevent Heart Disease,” which amounted to an all-out attack on dietary fat. Many scientists pointed out that there really was a lack of convincing evidence demonstrating that low-fat diets would be healthful. But the majority, seeing an epidemic of heart disease which must surely be due to fatty diets, outnumbered the reticent ones, and the Consensus Statement was voted into publication. Then, when the AHA abandoned its earlier caution and endorsed this Consensus Statement, the scientific backing for the government’s public policy encouraging low-fat diets for everyone was fully in place.

This action finally ignited the great low-fat diet era. Spurred on by government policy, prestigious medical organizations and others began a campaign of public service announcements and media blitzes. Influential magazines (that is, magazines read by women) began a prolonged onslaught of low-fat diet tips, articles, and human interest stories emphasizing the deadly nature of dietary fat. The food industry, which was at first very skeptical (like the banks when subprime mortgages were initially foisted upon them), finally jumped in with both feet. A massive new product line of low-fat and no-fat snack foods were invented which were just packed with carbohydrates, and often with supposedly “healthy” man-made trans fats. (This major shift in food production has been referred to as the “Snackwell phenomenon.”) The AHA found a lucrative new revenue source officially certifying such low-fat, high-carb products (including Frosted Flakes and Pop-Tarts) as being “Heart Healthy.”

Americans, being filled with the milk of human nature, largely ignored the ubiquitous pleas to abandon their burgers, pizza and tacos in favor of broiled, skinless, sauceless, saltless chicken breasts and broccoli. But they did begin scarfing up the new-age low-fat snack foods in massive quantities, having been assured that, as long as the snacks contained no fat, they could eat as much as they wanted.

There are a few physiological facts about dietary carbohydrates that were largely ignored during the low-fat era. First, the body greedily converts dietary carbohydrates into massive stores of adipose tissue, so indeed you can readily become fat by eating carbs. Second, gorging on the refined carbohydrates found in these new “healthy snacks” causes huge spikes in insulin levels (insulin being a key factor in converting excess carbohydrates to fat).  When the insulin levels suddenly drop a couple of hours later, that drop produces insatiable hunger. So, two or three hours after enjoying a fat-free Pop-Tart or a Snackwell cupcake, one is ripping the cubboards open to find another carbohydrate fix. By thus inducing a continuous-snacking mode, the new high-carb snack foods increased overall caloric intake far beyond the calories listed on their labels.  Third, diets high in refined carbohydrates increase triglyceride levels, reduce HDL cholesterol (“good cholesterol) levels, and in general create lipid profiles that are quite damaging to the arteries.

So, while few people actually stuck to a strict low-fat diet, many, many people became addicted to refined carbohydrates, and as a result became fat.

It has only been in the past five or six years that the low-fat dogma has begun to moderate, largely thanks to the (now mercifully faded) low-carb craze that struck at that time.  We now hear somewhat more reasonable advice about good fats and bad fats, and good carbs and bad carbs. But much of the damage has been done, and at least partially because of the major push for low-fat diets, we Americans are fatter and less healthy than we used to be.

By the way, to this day it has never been shown that low-fat diets applied across the population would reduce the incidence of heart disease.

The low-fat diet policy amounted to a massive public health experiment, with the research subjects being us. Our government and our scientific organizations have yet to apologize for subjecting all of us to this travesty.  Indeed, like the outcome of the great experiment in subprime mortgages, the outcome of the low-fat experiment is not particularly chastening to our Central Authorities. In fact, it works to their advantage.

To see why, consider the final way in which the obesity crisis is like the mortgage crisis. To prevent another mortgage crisis, our government, in its wisdom, did not promise to avoid promulgating any more counterproductive economic policies that will force businesses and individuals to act in harmful ways. (In fact, government policy continues to coerce lending to unqualified individuals.) Rather, they passed massive new “financial reform” legislation aimed at preventing banks and other financial institutions from behaving logically in response to bad government policies. The cure for bad regulation is more bad regulation. And when the results of its own bad regulations created an opportunity to grab even more control over the marketplace, our government lept at the chance.

Similarly, having (probably inadvertently) made policies that resulted in a fatter, less healthy populace, our government is now poised to take advantage of that opportunity, to turn the purportedly grave danger posed to the nation by the obesity crisis into a mandate for assuming powerful controls over the prerogatives of individual Americans.

And now, having learned that, like bad economic policy, bad public health policy can get them to where they want to go, our Progressive leaders are turning their attention to the next great public health initiative. Far from apologizing to us for the damage they caused with their low-fat experiment, they are plotting the next great experiment in public health which they will perform upon the population.

It appears it will have to do with salt.

Podcast:

Rachel Maddow, in a discussion related to the provision of abortion services, once proposed that we (society) should invoke the Amish Bus Driver Rule whenever medical professionals invoke their personal convictions in refusing to provide legal medical services.

The Amish Bus Driver Rule goes like this: If you’re Amish, and therefore have religious convictions against internal combustion engines, then you have disqualified yourself for employment as a bus driver. (Presumably Ms. Maddow would not apply the Amish Bus Driver Rule to everyone, since it would disqualify, for instance, Al Gore from utilizing horseless carriages and other fossil-fueled contrivances.)

The Amish Bus Driver Rule would do far more than merely render it OK for doctors to perform abortions and other ethically controversial (but legal) medical services. The ABDR would obligate physicians to provide such services, whatever their personal moral or religious convictions.

The reason DrRich brings this up is not because he considers Rachel Maddow to be the giver of rules for the left, or for the government, or even for MSNBC. Rather, he brings it up because the Amish Bus Driver Rule is entirely compatible with Progressive medical ethics, and therefore it has a pretty good chance, sooner or later, of becoming the official policy of our new healthcare system.

To spell it out: Once you agree to accept from the government a license to practice medicine, and thus accept a privileged and restricted position within our society, then you are naturally obligated to provide any medical services, approved by the government, that you are called upon to provide. In particular, you are obligated to check your personal  – and most especially, your religious – convictions at the door. If you are unwilling to carry out this obligation, then, like the Amish bus driver, you have disqualified yourself from that privileged position. Go do some other job that does not violate your prissy sensibilities.

This logic is eminently simple. In fact, it can be reduced to an elementary syllogism:

Premise 1: Society awards physicians an exclusive license to provide legitimate medical services.

Premise 2: Society deems certain medical services such as abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia to be legitimate medical services.

Conclusion: Therefore, all licensed physicians are obligated to provide these services.

Many conservatives will be nearly apoplectic over the idea that doctors who are morally opposed to life-ending medical activities must either agree to perform those activities (once society decides they are legitimate medical services) or leave the profession. But conservatives, proud of their self-described tradition of acting on the basis of hard data and cold logic (unlike those silly liberals who let simple emotions rule them), find themselves in this instance stymied by the very foundation of logic – the syllogism. They are hoisted on their own petard.

Indeed, doctors who object to having to provide life-ending medical services find themselves in quite a fix, and what’s more, it is a fix that has resulted from the actions of their own profession.

When we are faced with a syllogism whose internal logic is unassailable, but whose conclusion we strongly believe to be wrong, then Aristotle (him again!) teaches us to check our premises. But when we do so, in this case we quickly see that while both premises may “feel” wrong to many physicians, in 2010 they are indeed correct. And therefore, so is the conclusion.

Premise 1 asserts that the physicians’ primary obligations are defined by a contract between themselves and society – or (let’s be frank) the state.

Until just a few years ago doctors could have legitimately objected to this assertion, since from the time of the ancient Greeks the physician’s prime obligation was defined by a direct covenant between themselves and the individual patient. And the precepts of medical ethics that governed the behavior of physicians were focused entirely on sanctifying that doctor-patient relationship. Those ethical precepts took precedence over everything else, like ethical precepts are meant to do, and at least in principle superseded all other authority down through the ages.

But alas, modern doctors don’t hold to such things anymore. And in recent years they have made their departure from their ancient ethical principles, and from the traditional doctor-patient relationship, fully explicit and quite formal.  They have done this to such an extent that they can no longer even aspire to the relatively minor sin of hypocrisy.  (Say what you will about hypocrites. At least they espouse firm principles which they can then violate.)

It is clear, of course, that doctors do not work for their patients anymore. Instead, they now work for the government and the government-regulated insurance companies. Still, this new kind of working relationship does not necessarily have to wreck medical ethics or the doctor-patient relationship, were it managed thoughtfully. But rather than figure out how to preserve their professional obligations within a new economic paradigm, the medical profession instead has chosen to issue a revised set of ethical precepts “for a new millennium,” aimed at adjusting what were supposed to have been (and had been, for the prior two millennia) timeless principles, in order to comport with the changing needs of society.  And so, of its own accord, the medical profession has abandoned its foundational ethical precepts, and thereby has abandoned the classic doctor-patient relationship – the very thing which defined the practice of medicine to be a professional endeavor in the first place. The medical profession has redefined itself by a new obligation to the changeable needs of the collective, instead of its old obligation to the expectations of the individual patients who place their lives in their hands.

In short, the profession of medicine has formally and voluntarily converted itself into a primarily contractual enterprise (i.e., as contractors for the government and government proxies), instead of a primarily ethical enterprise between themselves and their patients.

And so, whereas Premise 1 could have been easily cast aside just a few years ago (which is why it still “feels” wrong to a lot of doctors), today it is entirely legitimate.

Premise 2 recognizes certain life-ending activities to be legitimate medical services. Abortion, of course, has been legal in the U.S. for several decades. Since many of his readers will quibble with the assertion that abortion is life-ending, DrRich has decided to make Premise 2 somewhat forward looking, and so he has included the other two life-ending actions which will very likely become legitimate, approved “medical services” in the foreseeable future.

The medical profession not too many decades ago was quite clear on the ethical status of life-ending actions taken by physicians. Such actions in all their forms were proscribed. The Hippocratic Oath forbids taking actions intended to end life, and specifically calls out abortion as one of those  forbidden actions. But the Hippocratic Oath (like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) has become merely quaint in our modern, advanced society.

One of the reasons DrRich appreciated the Hippocratic Oath, when it was recited at his medical school graduation way back in a different era, was that it so clearly reflected non-religious standards. Yes, it blustered on about Asclepius and Hygieia and so on, but even the ancient Greeks didn’t really take their gods seriously. The Oath invoked the gods in the same manner in which, some assert, our founders invoked the Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Whether or not they were actually asserting that our foundational principles come directly from a being named God, they were making a very powerful statement. At the very least, they were saying, “We hold these principles to be so fundamental to the essence of man that to violate them would violate our very reason to exist. They are our bedrock, and to challenge them would be fatal to our enterprise. Here we draw our line in the sand, and we will defend this line to our deaths.”

The Hippocratic Oath was kind of like that.

The Hippocratic invocation against physicians ending innocent life was a clear line in the sand, and its purpose was a practical one rather than a religious one. For, in order to legally take an innocent life, we are required to say either that sometimes it is perfectly OK to kill an innocent human being, or that for some reason (because, for instance, at such-and-such a stage of fetal development the potential human is not yet viable) a particular innocent life is not really a human being after all. If it is sometimes perfectly OK to kill an innocent human being, our society is terminally corrupt. On the other hand, if society has the temerity to define “human being” in such a way as to meet its exigencies of the moment (beyond the most conservative possible definition suggested by nature, that is, the point where sperm and the egg combine to form a new life entity), it will necessarily be a fundamentally arbitrary definition. And once society undertakes to define human life arbitrarily, then there is nothing to stop society from changing that arbitrary definition as expediency requires.

Wise Hippocrates (DrRich suspects), foreseeing that mankind was likely to continue with its periodic spurts of genocidal indignation against this or that sub-human subset of our species, and seeing that it would be fatal to the medical profession to allow its special arts to be turned toward aiding such efforts, and realizing that it would be impossible, once physicians engaged in any small but legitimized taking of innocent life, to keep from escalating those activities if the needs of a society under duress demanded it, came to the conclusion that the profession required an absolute proscription here. This proscription was not a religious statement, but a practical and entirely secular one, based on a long and thoughtful observation of human nature, and aimed at keeping the medical profession focused on its real mission (caring for individual patients) rather than becoming an instrument of societal or political imperatives. And for over two thousand years the medical profession followed this line of reasoning.

The Hippocratic Oath has not been read aloud during medical school graduation ceremonies for decades now. The reason it was dropped has nothing to do with the usual claptrap you hear about not wanting to swear to Greek gods anymore. It has to do with the fact that doctors no longer subscribe to the content. It is no coincidence that the oath disappeared from the program in very short order during the 1970s, right after the Rowe v. Wade decision.  In any case, over the past few decades many physicians – possibly a majority – have quite gotten over their queasiness about taking actions that either a) end innocent life, or b) admit that society has the right to define arbitrarily what it means by “human life.” And the ones who still object to such actions are in dire risk of becoming the Amish bus drivers of healthcare.

So Premise 2 clearly expresses the actual default position of the medical profession today. While, for many physicians, it (like Premise 1) “feels” wrong, Premise 2 stands on its own merits.

Thus, like it or not, almost entirely due to the “evolution” of the profession of medicine itself rather than to any externally imposed changes, our syllogism appears entirely correct.

The implications are quite disturbing, and go far beyond the mere prospect of forcing pro-life doctors to either get with the program or get out. For what this syllogism really says is that the state will determine which medical actions are legitimate (or to be more specific, ethical), and that physicians being (through their own voluntary capitulation) mere contractors working at the pleasure of the state, are thus obligated to just shut up and sing. To say it more plainly, what is medically ethical is to be determined by the state, and individual doctors (except for the ones acting as collaborators and spokespersons for the state, whose job will be to make the ethical pronouncements seem medically legitimate), will have nothing to say about it.

When we view the history of mankind, we see that when the sovereign state is the entity which determines what is ethical, there is always hell to pay.

History teaches us that the state is sovereign not because it is inherently the most ethical entity within a social construct, or an ethical entity in any sense at all.  Sovereignty is determined by power, not ethics. Indeed, the most useful definition of “sovereign power” is: that power which has the ultimate ability to impose its will by the application of violence. The state is inherently a political and power-based entity, whose survival depends on manipulating the political landscape and the ability to threaten (or exert) adequate violence whenever required. Such a beast is inherently poor at ethics.

DrRich happens to believe that American society is essentially good, and constitutes the most ethical large and sustained social system that has yet been devised by mankind. Yet when pressed by economics, war, political strife, manifest destiny or a myriad of other stresses, even our government has behaved dismally and frankly unethically, and has done so on numerous occasions throughout its history. One merely needs to consider slavery, the Dred Scott decision, the Mexican-American war, the treatment of native Americans, World War II internment camps, and the Tuskegee study (DrRich ignores more recent history here to avoid stirring up still-fresh controversies) to get a taste of what kinds of government behavior we in our culture are capable of justifying to ourselves when under duress. (To put this in perspective, of course, other highly-developed Western cultures during the past century, where powerful sovereign authorities assumed the right to define ethical actions, performed atrocities that cause ours to pale in comparison. But this mitigation merely reinforces DrRich’s main point.)

As DrRich has been fond of pointing out on this blog, the need to find ways to ration American healthcare covertly has created extreme duress within our healthcare system, and within the government and the insurance companies responsible for administering it. And as a result covert rationing has already produced deeply and widely distributed behaviors that are harmful, inefficient, unfair and yes, frankly unethical, which affect every aspect of American healthcare.  Ceding to the state – desperate to ration healthcare in any manner it can get away with – the right to define what is medically ethical, and assigning to doctors the obligation of simply obeying, sounds to DrRich like a prescription for catastrophe.

And in this way, Progressive medical ethics has brought us to a very dangerous juncture.