Here is the opening:
Can your doctor serve two masters at once?I also discuss how this conflict of interest will worsen under ObamaCare as well as how adapting an idea by UCLA law professor Russell Korobkin may help avoid this problem and protect the doctor-patient relationship.
That's the question American physicians are grappling with. The New York Times recently reported on a growing debate within the medical profession as to whether doctors should make treatment decisions in the best interests of their individual patients -- or if they should limit care to save money for "society."
This would represent a seismic shift in standard medical ethics. Traditionally, a doctor's primary ethical duty is to the patient. Patients literally put their lives in our hands, trusting that their physician will always act as their advocate. But with health care costs currently consuming 18% of the US economy (and an enlarging share of government budgets), some doctors are openly calling for fellow physicians to limit their use of more expensive tests and therapies to save money for "the larger society."
As Dr. Martin Samuels (chairman of neurology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston) warned in the Times piece, doctors risk losing patients' trust if they say, "I'm not going to do what I think is best for you because I think it's bad for the health care budget in Massachusetts."
We don't expect our lawyer to balance our legal interests against saving money for "the court system" or our real estate agent to balance our housing preferences against what's best for "the regional housing market." Shouldn't our doctors adhere to the same code of ethics?...
For more details, read the full text of "Should Doctors Limit Medical Care To Save Money For 'Society'?"
