Podcast:

 

 Why They're Trashing the JUPITER Trial [17:44m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (57)

This week, the Archives of Internal Medicine published four (four!) articles assaulting the legitimacy and the importance of the JUPITER trial, a landmark clinical study published in 2008, which showed that certain apparently healthy patients with normal cholesterol levels had markedly improved cardiovascular outcomes when taking a statin drug.

Superficially, at least, the JUPITER study appears to have been pretty straightforward. Nearly 18,000 men and women from 26 countries who had “normal” cholesterol levels but elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were randomized to receive either the statin drug Crestor, or a placebo. CRP is a non-specific marker of inflammation, and an increased CRP blood level is thought to represent inflammation within the blood vessels, and is a known risk factor for heart attack and stroke. The study was stopped after a little less than two years, when the study’s independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) determined that it would be unethical to continue. For, at that point, individuals taking the statin had a 20% reduction in overall mortality, a dramatic reduction in heart attacks, a 50% reduction in stroke, and a 40% reduction in venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. All these findings were highly statistically significant.

This study is noteworthy because it is the first large randomized trial to show that taking a statin can markedly reduce the incidence of some very nasty cardiovascular outcomes in people who are considered to have “normal” cholesterol levels. (Notably, typical LDL cholesterol levels among primitive hunting/gathering cultures is around 50 mg/dL, instead of the 100 – 120 mg/dL we consider to be normal. These primitive folks have an extremely low incidence of cardiovascular disease, so maybe humans’ optimal cholesterol level is much lower than we now think. On the other hand, the low risk of cardiovascular disease among hunters/gatherers may instead be related to the fact that many of them are consumed by various species of carnivores before they’re 30.)

To be sure, the JUPITER trial was far from perfect. Because of its design, it could not (and did not) tell us whether the beneficial outcome is specific to Crestor, or is a class effect of all statins (which seems very likely). It did not tell us whether reducing CRP levels is itself beneficial, or even whether using CRP as a screening tool is actually helpful. (The people enrolled in this trial tended to have several other risk factors, such as being overweight, having metabolic syndrome, and smoking, and it is not clear how much additional risk elevated CRP levels really added in this population.) And this trial did not tell us the risks of lifelong, or even very long-term, Crestor therapy.

But JUPITER did tell us something that is very useful to know, and with a very high degree of statistical surety: Giving Crestor to patients similar to the ones enrolled in this study can be expected to result in significantly and substantially improved cardiovascular outcomes, and in a relatively short period of time.

If medicine were practiced the way it ought to be – where the doctor takes the available evidence, as imperfect as it always is, and applies it to each of her individual patients – then the incompleteness of answers from the JUPITER trial would present no special problems. After all, doctors never have all the answers when they help patients make decisions. So, in this case the doctor would discuss the pros and cons of statin therapy – the risks, the potential benefits, and all the quite important unknowns – and place the decision in the perspective of what might be gained if the patient instead took pains to control their weight, exercise, diet, smoking, etc. At the end of the day, some patients would insist on avoiding drug therapy at all costs; others would insist on Crestor and nothing else; yet others would choose to try a much cheaper generic statin; and some would even opt (believe it or not) for a trial of lifestyle changes before deciding on statin therapy. In other words, there is a range of reasonable options given the limitations of our knowledge, as there often is in clinical medicine. As time goes by, more scientific evidence is often brought to bear and clinical decisions can become more informed. But whatever the state of the evidence, doctors and patients can generally get by without violating too severely any ethical or medical precepts that would cause objective and neutral observers to complain very much.

But in recent years, and especially now, as we bravely embark on our new healthcare system, this is not how doctors will practice medicine. Instead, they will practice medicine by guidelines. These guidelines (which, in modern medical parlance, is a euphemism for “directives”) are to be handed down from panels of experts, identified and assembled by members of the executive branch of the federal government.

And this makes the stakes very high when it comes to a clinical trial like JUPITER. For guidelines do not permit a range of actions tailored to fit individual patients (consistent with the uncertainties inherent in the results of any clinical trial). Instead, guidelines will seek to take one of two possible positions. That is, under a paradigm of medicine-by-guidelines, the results of clinical trials generally cannot be permitted to remain imperfect or nuanced or subject to individual application, but must be resolved by a central panel of government-issue experts into a binary system – yes (do it) or no (don’t do it). In the case of JUPITER, the guidelines must decide whether or not to recommend Crestor to patients like the ones enrolled in the study, at a potential cost of several billion dollars a year. It should be obvious that the answer which would be more pleasant to the ends of the central authority, and  by a large margin, would be: No, don’t adopt the JUPITER results into clinical practice.

However, the expert panels which are called for by our new healthcare legislation have not been formulated yet, and we are still operating under the “old” rules. So, still subject to all the duress which is created by unfortunately-resolved clinical trials like this one, the FDA, somewhat reluctantly, approved the use of Crestor for JUPITER-like patients in late 2009. That approval, of course, is subject to review by the new expert panels, whenever they are assembled.

This, DrRich submits for your consideration, is likely what instigated the almost violently anti-JUPITER issue of the Archives this week. DrRich theorizes that what we’ve got here is a bunch of wannabe federally-sanctioned experts, auditioning for positions on the expert panels. What better way to get the Fed’s attention than to let them know that you are of the appropriate frame of mind to assiduously seek out scientific-sounding arguments to discount the straightforward and compelling, but fiscally unfortunate, results of a well-known clinical trial?

Of the four papers appearing in this week’s Archives, three are more-or-less legitimate academic articles that make reasonable points, but do no harm to the main result of JUPITER. The fourth is a straightforward polemic, which has no place in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and whose very presence, DrRich believes, very strongly suggests that the editors of the Archives themselves must be auditioning for the Fed’s expert panel.

So as not to bore his readers any more than necessary, DrRich will make short work of the three reasonably legitimate articles in this issue. One pointed out that JUPITER did not tease out the real importance of CRP levels, or whether lowering those levels is useful. This is true, but that fact does not touch the main conclusion of JUPITER. Another article was a meta-analysis which incorporated several other primary prevention trials using statins, and concluded that there is no overall benefit to statins in primary prevention patients. Aside from the usual problems inherent in meta-analyses, a) the JUPITER study looked at a specific population of primary prevention patients not addressed by these other studies, and b) since JUPITER is the first study to show a benefit in using statins for primary prevention, it is a foregone conclusion that if you assemble enough of the previous, negative studies and lump them together with JUPITER in a meta-analysis, you will be able to dilute the results of JUPITER sufficiently to achieve an overall negative result. Actually doing such a meta-analysis, then, is merely an exercise in math, not in revelation.

The third article criticized the JUPITER DSMB for stopping the trial earlier than originally planned. The DSMB, however, had no real choice in the matter – ethically or legally – given the striking statistical significance of the benefit seen with Crestor. When a patient signs an informed consent agreement to participate in a clinical trial, part of that “contract,” a part required by law, is the statement to the effect that if information comes to light during the course of the study that might impact a patient’s willingness to continue participating, that information must be made available. The fact that the Crestor branch of the study was found to have markedly improved survival, fewer strokes and heart attacks, etc., than the placebo branch, clearly constitutes such information. Stopping the study when they did was not “premature;” continuing the study would have been illegitimate. This is why independent DSMBs exist in the first place – to protect the rights and welfare of the research subjects under the fiduciary agreement that comprises informed consent.

The fourth article is more striking (and more fun) than the other three. Interestingly, it is categorized by the Archives as an “Original Investigation,” despite the fact that it describes no investigation of any kind whatsoever – original or derivative. It merely revisits the data from JUPITER (in a spectacularly biased manner), and offers a spate of ad hominem attacks, alleging bias to the point of corruption, without any supporting evidence, against JUPITER’s sponsor, its investigators, and most astoundingly, the chair of the DSMB (who is a well known and highly respected figure, especially known and revered for his complete objectivity and lack of bias). If such an article has any place at all in a peer-reviewed medical journal – which DrRich doubts – it ought to be clearly labeled as an opinion piece, and not as a piece of original research. Whatever it may be, it’s not that.

But the most delicious aspect of this fourth article is that two of its authors, including its lead author, are members of a fringe medical group known as The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), whose stated mission is to “oppose” the notion that high cholesterol and animal fat play a role in cardiovascular disease. Members of THINCS also take an extraordinarily strong position opposing statins for any clinical use whatsoever. (One might actually assume that, since JUPITER shows that cardiovascular outcomes can be improved by statins in people with normal cholesterol levels, the THINCS would embrace the study as evidence that perhaps cholesterol is not as important as it’s cracked up to be. But apparently, this argument is completely negated by the fact that statins were the vehicle for making it. Many in the anti-statin crowd would object to statins even if they were proven to cure heart disease, cancer, baldness, and obesity AND produced fine and durable erections upon demand.)

The best part of all this is that the astounding anti-cholesterol, anti-statin bias of the authors was not disclosed in their article – whose main thrust, again, was to criticize the disclosed biases of the JUPITER investigators.

The excellent Pharmalot blog noted this irony, and contacted Rita Redberg (editor of the Archives) and Michel de Lorgeril (THINCS-master and prime author of the fourth article) to ask them why the association with THINCS was not disclosed.

Redberg:

“I’m not clear this is an undisclosed conflict. The policy mentions a personal relationship that could influence one’s work. I think that could be a big stretch. My initial impression is the group has an intellectual message, but doesn’t fit as a personal relationship that could effect the authors’ work.”

de Lorgeril:

“[While it is] very important to disclose financial [emphasis DrRich's] conflicts of interest that can influence our way of working and thinking about cholesterol and statins, there is so far no obligation to provide a CV each time we publish any thing…May I underline the fact that being a member of THINCS – not a group of terrorists, mainly a club of very kind retired scientists with whom I have interesting and open discussion – is not a conflict of interest?”

DrRich may be old fashioned, but he thinks that being a member of an “out there” group like THINCS, which appears to advance selected and distorted data on its website aimed at furthering its stated mission of “opposing” (not investigating or questioning) the cholesterol hypothesis and the use of statins, might make one prone to a bit of bias when writing a broadside critiquing a study like JUPITER, and loudly criticizing anyone associated with that study for their bias. This sort of bias (demonstrably rooted in a willingness to select/ignore/distort data in order to make a preconceived point) is likely to be as strong as any that might accompany, for instance, receiving a stipend from a statin company for participating in clinical research. Membership in THINCS may not preclude one from writing such an article, but DrRich thinks the association at least ought to be disclosed, just as financial relationships must be disclosed.

DrRich has a hard time explaining how this can happen with a prestigious medical journal like the Archives. But like Sherlock Holmes says, when you have eliminated the impossible (such as, the idea that this article deserved to be published in its current form), whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

And this is why DrRich can only conclude that several of the authors appearing in this week’s issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, along with its editor, are in the mode of ingratiating themselves to the sundry officials and czars within the Obama administration who will be assembling the expert medical panels, those panels which will be making the momentous decisions that will determine the flow of hundreds of billions of dollars, and (forgive me) of life and death.

We wish them the best of luck in their audition, and will be monitoring the memberships of the new panels with interest, to see if any of our new friends are ultimately successful.

__

DrRich critiques more arguments for withholding Crestor here.

__

_Sources:

_{de Lorgeril M, Salen P, Abramson J, et al. Cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular diseases, and the rosuvastatin-JUPITER controversy. A critical reappraisal. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1032-1036.}

_{Kaul S, Morrissey RP, Diamond GA. By Jove! What is a clinician to make of JUPITER? Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1073-1077.}

_{Ray KK, Seshasai SRK, Erqou S, et al. Statins and all-cause mortality in high-risk primary prevention. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1024-1031.}

_{Green L A. Cholesterol-lowering therapy for primary prevention. Still much we don’t know. Arch Intern Med. 2010; 170:1007-1008.}

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Podcast:

 

 Dr. House and the Great American Experiment [15:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (144)

DrRich’s Independence Day Address to his Loyal Readers:

DrRich has always found it fascinating that the television show, “House MD” has remained so popular for so long. After all, Gregory House embodies the polar opposite of what we all say we want in a modern physician. House may be brilliant, but he’s antisocial, arrogant, sloppy and rude. He holds his patients in contempt, and considers them to be mentally deficient, or prevaricators, or both. He will take any action he deems necessary, however illegal or immoral it may be, to make sure his patients get whatever medical interventions he has determined they need, whether they (or anyone else) likes it or not.

And when he does what he does, the individual autonomy of his patients never, ever enters his mind.

Given that House extravagantly violates his patients’ autonomy whenever he can find any excuse to do so, joyfully proclaiming his great contempt for them and their individual rights, then why is his story so popular in America and around the world?

DrRich believes that the answer to this question ought to remind us of the fundamentally precarious nature of individual autonomy within our healthcare system, and within our culture.

Individual Autonomy in Medicine

Maintaining the autonomy of the individual patient has become the primary principle of medical ethics. And medical paternalism, whereby the physician knows best and should rightly make the important medical decisions for his or her patient, is supposed to be a thing of the past.

It has been formally agreed, by medical ethicists all over the world, that patients have a nearly absolute right to determine their own medical destiny. In particular, unless the patient is incapacitated, the doctor (after taking every step necessary to inform the patient of all the available options, and the potential risks and benefits of each one) must defer to the final decision of the patient – even if the doctor strongly disagrees with that decision. Hence, the kind of behavior which is the modus operandi of Dr. House should be universally castigated.

The notion that the patient’s autonomy is and ought to be the predominant principle of medical ethics, of course, is entirely consistent with the Enlightenment ideal of individual rights. This ideal first developed in Europe nearly 500 years ago, but had trouble taking root there, and really only flowered when Europeans first came to America and had the opportunity to put it to work in an isolated location, where rigid social structures were not already in place. The development of this ideal culminated with America’s Declaration of Independence, in which our founders declared individual autonomy (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to be an “inalienable” right granted by the Creator, and thus predating and taking precedence over any government created by mankind. And since that time the primacy of the individual in American culture has, more or less, remained our chief operating principle. Individual autonomy – or to put it in more familiar terms, individual freedom – is the foundational principle of our culture, and it is one that is perpetually worth fighting and dying to defend.

So the idea that the autonomy of the individual ought rightly to predominate when it comes to making medical decisions is simply a natural extension of the prime American ideal. It is obvious, most think, that this ought to be the governing principle of medical ethics.

Dr. House: The Champion of Beneficence

But unfortunately, it’s not that easy. There’s another principle of medical ethics that has an even longer history than that of autonomy – the principle of beneficence. Beneficence dictates that the physician must always act to maximize the benefit – and minimize the harm – to the patient. Beneficence recognizes that the physician is the holder of great and special knowledge that is not easily duplicated, and therefore has a special obligation to use that knowledge – always and without exception – to do what he knows is best for the patient. Dr. House is a proponent of the principle of beneficence (though he is most caustic and abrasive about expressing it). DrRich believes House is popular at least partly because the benefits that can accrue to a patient through the principle of beneficence – that is, through medical paternalism – are plain for all to see.

Obviously, as “House MD” nicely illustrates, the principles of beneficence and of individual autonomy will sometimes be in conflict.  When two worthwhile and legitimate ethical principles are found to be in conflict, that is called an ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas are often resolved either by consensus or by force. In our culture, this dilemma has been resolved (for now) by consensus. The world community has deemed individual autonomy to predominate over beneficence in making medical decisions.

DrRich’s point here is that Dr. House (the champion of beneficence) is not absolutely wrong. Indeed, he espouses a time-honored precept of medical ethics, which until quite recently was THE precept of medical ethics. There is much to be said for beneficence. Making the “right” medical decision often requires having deep and sophisticated knowledge about the options, knowledge which is often beyond the reach of many patients. And even sophisticated patients who are well and truly medically literate will often become lost when they are ill, distraught and afraid, and their capacity to make difficult decisions is diminished. Perhaps, some (like House) would say, their autonomy ought not be their chief concern at such times. Indeed, one could argue that in a perfect world, where the doctor has nearly perfect knowledge and a nearly perfect appreciation of what is best for the patient, beneficence should take precedence over autonomy.

Why Autonomy Predominates

In this light it is instructive to consider just how and why autonomy came to be declared, by universal consensus, the predominant principle of medical ethics. It happened after World War II, as a direct result of the Nuremberg Tribunal. During that Tribunal the trials against Nazi doctors revealed heinous behavior – generally involving medical “research” on Jewish prisoners – that exceeded all bounds of civilized activity. It became evident that under some circumstances (circumstances which were extreme under the Nazis, but which are by no means unique in human history) individual patients could not rely on the beneficence of society, or the beneficence of the government, or even the beneficence of their own doctors to protect them from abuse at the hands of authority. Thus, the ethical precept which asks patients ultimately to rely on the beneficence of others was starkly revealed to be wholly inadequate; and indeed, invites horrific results. Thus the precept of individual autonomy won out not because it is so inherently superior, but by default.

Subsequently, the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics was drafted and formally adopted worldwide. The Nuremberg Code officially declared individual autonomy to be the predominant precept of medical ethics, and the precept of beneficence, while also important, was declared to be of secondary concern. Where a conflict occurs between these two ethical precepts, the patient’s autonomy is to win out.

Again, this declaration was not a positive statement about how honoring the autonomy of the individual represents the peak of human ethical behavior. Rather, it was fundamentally a negative statement: Under duress (the Nuremberg Code admits) societies (and their agents) often behave very badly, and ultimately only the individual himself can be relied upon to at least attempt to protect his or her own best interests.

House vs. Autonomy and the Great American Experiment

DrRich will take this one step further: when our founders made individual autonomy the organizing principle of a new nation, they were also making a negative statement.

From their observation of human history (and anyone who doubts that our founders were intimately familiar with the great breadth of human history should re-read the Federalist Papers), they found that individuals could not rely on any earthly authority to protect them, their life and limb, or their individual prerogatives. Mankind had tried every variety of authority – kings, clergy, heroes, philosophers and professors – and individuals were eventually trampled under by them all. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, and because everything else had been tried many times and had failed, our founders declared individual liberty to be the bedrock of our new culture.

There is an inherent problem with relying on individual autonomy as the chief ethical principle of medicine, namely, autonomous patients not infrequently make very bad decisions for themselves, and then they – and their loved ones, and sometimes society – have to pay the consequences. The same occurs, of course, when we rely on individual autonomy as the chief operating principle of our civil life. The capacity of individuals to fend for themselves – to succeed in our competitive culture – is not equal, and so the outcomes are decidedly unequal. Autonomous individuals often fail – either because of inherent personal limitations, bad decisions, or bad luck.

So whether we’re talking about medicine or society at large, despite our foundational principles we will always have the temptation to return to a posture of dependence – of relying on the beneficence of some authority, in the hope of achieving more overall security or fairness – at the sacrifice of our individual autonomy.

In DrRich’s estimation the popularity of “House MD” is entirely consistent with this very strong tendency. Indeed, he thinks, the writers are compelled to make Dr. House as unattractive a person as he is, just to temper our enthusiasm for an authority figure who always knows what is best for us and acts on that knowledge, come hell or high water. If a figure such as Dr. House was also a compelling personality and had a gift with words, he would become almost Messianic – far too dangerous a prospect for a television program.

Those of us who defend the principle of individual autonomy – and the economic system of capitalism that flows from it – all too often forget where it came from, and DrRich believes this is why it can be so difficult to defend. We – and our founders – did not adopt it as the peak of all human thought, but for the very practical reason that ceding ultimate authority to any other entity, sooner or later, guarantees tyranny. This was true in 1776, and after observing the numerous experiments in socialism we have seen around the world since that time, is even more true today.

Individual autonomy will always be a very imperfect organizing principle, both for healthcare and for society at large. Making it an acceptable principle takes perpetual hard work, to find ways of smoothing out the stark inequities that will always result, without ceding too much corrupting power to some central authority. This is the Great American Experiment.

Those of us who have the privilege of being Americans today, of all days, find ourselves greatly challenged. But earlier generations of Americans faced challenges that were every bit as difficult. If we continually remind ourselves what’s at stake, and that while our system is not perfect or even perfectable, it remains far better than any other system that has ever been tried, and that we can continue to improve on it without ceding our destiny – medical or civil – to a corruptible central authority, then perhaps we can keep that Great American Experiment going, and eventually hand it off intact to yet another generation, to face yet another generation’s challenges.

________________________________

Now, read the whole story.

DrRich explains it all in, Fixing American Healthcare – Wonkonians, Gekkonians and the Grand Unification Theory of Healthcare.

Now on Kindle!

Podcast:

 

 Medicare Already Does It (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 4) [12:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (32)

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 3 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives
____________

DrRich could go on and on about how our government is intent on restricting the right of individuals to spend their own money on their own healthcare, but (for now, at least) this will be the final post in this series. DrRich has made his point.

Even some of his critics, who have accused DrRich in the past of being overly paranoid on this topic, seem to have gotten it. Some who previously were quite vocal have remained suspiciously silent. Others have fallen back to quasi ad hominem accusations (suggesting, for instance, that DrRich must be a follower of Mr. Beck, with all the horrific connotations that condition entails). And then there is the esteemed Praveen (author of the excellent True Cost Blog), who conceded as follows: “Massachusetts’ attempt to ban direct pay is both unfortunate and unconstitutional. Perhaps you’re right, and the bureaucrats are sneakier than I think.”

So maybe DrRich should just declare victory and move on.

But it is important to make one final point, namely: the notion that our government is intent on limiting our individual healthcare prerogatives is far more than just one of DrRich’s theoretical constructs. Indeed, our government has been acting on this intent for over 15 years. The main case in point, of course, is Medicare.

It has always been recognized that every American citizen “is the proper guardian of his own health,” (Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1873), and accordingly, has a natural right to employ his own individual resources to that end. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was a particularly explicit recognition that a woman has a fundamental right to purchase medical services which she determines to be necessary for her own well-being.

Indeed, when Medicare became law in 1965, Congress also explicitly recognized this right, stipulating that nothing in the new law “shall be construed to preclude [an individual] from purchasing or otherwise securing protection against the cost of any health services.” (DrRich reminds his readers once again that a bold, restrictive statement like this, appearing in legislation, generally heralds an outcome opposite to the statement itself.)

DrRich has already pointed out that under Hillarycare, private medical practice would have been nearly criminalized out of existence. So one ought to expect that the Clinton administration would view an individual right to purchase healthcare as a threat. And indeed, it did. But, as it happens, the erosion of the rights of Medicare “beneficiaries” began even before the Clinton administration. (And even again, DrRich must remind his readers that any universal healthcare plan, even under a Republican administration, will always tend to limit individual liberties.)

In 1991, Medicare administrators published a “carrier bulletin” warning physicians that direct-pay contracts between patients and doctors were strictly prohibited, unless the contract was initiated solely by the patient, and even then, payment rates must be set by Medicare, and further, if the patient later became dissatisfied with that (patient-initiated) contract, Medicare would severely (and retroactively) sanction the physician.

When physicians sued Medicare to prevent this odious new policy from being implemented (Stewart et al. v. Sullivan), the government took the position that it had, in fact, not made any new policy after all, arguing that stuff that shows up in its “carrier bulletin” doesn’t really count. But once this argument was successful in having the lawsuit thrown out in a summary judgment in 1992, Medicare then cynically turned around and immediately made that selfsame new policy “official,” by publishing it in their 1993 Medicare Carrier’s Manual.

But the Feds were still not satisfied. The new, restrictive policy technically still allowed private-pay contracts, as long as the patient initiated them. So the Clinton administration engineered an amendment to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 – Section 4507 – which prohibited any self-pay contracts whatsoever between Medicare patients and their doctors for medical services which are covered under Medicare. Under Section 4507, which is still the law today, if a doctor provides even one self-pay medical service to a single Medicare patient, that doctor is punished by complete banishment from the Medicare program for at least two years.

The federal government was eventually challenged again in court over Section 4507, but that lawsuit was also thrown out in a summary judgment. The rationale the government offered to the court in justifying its restrictions on individuals’ prerogatives, however, is instructive: “…what you will have is a system whereby the rich can buy what they want and those many beneficiaries who are on fixed income will not be able to afford those services” (United Seniors Association et al. v. Shalala). So again, the interest of the collective (“social justice”) was invoked to justify a law which stifles an individual’s fundamental right to purchase medical services he or she determines to be necessary for his/her well-being.

In any case, since 1997 Medicare patients have been able to purchase Medicare-covered services for themselves ONLY if they obtain that service from a doctor who agrees to opt out of Medicare entirely. This severely limits a patient’s opportunity to self-pay for covered services. The fact that Medicare patients can still buy these medical services from direct-pay physicians, however, is one reason the government hates direct-pay practices, and wishes to stamp them out. More importantly, while some primary care physicians have indeed opted out of Medicare in order to establish direct-pay practices, this path is not a realistic option for medical specialists. So in practical terms, the only “covered services” available for self-pay by Medicare patients, on even a limited basis, are primary care services.

There are several legitimate reasons a Medicare patient might want to self-pay for a medical service that is covered by Medicare. If Medicare “covers” heart valve surgery, for instance, a patient might want to pay for a new, minimally-invasive surgical approach that is inadequately reimbursed by Medicare, rather than the big, open-heart surgery that Medicare reimburses fully. Or, one might want to self-pay for “covered” psychiatric care, or for treatment for a venereal disease, in order to keep embarrassing or harmful medical records out of government-controlled databases.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that just because a healthcare service is “Medicare-covered” does not mean that it will be covered for a given patient. Whether a specific individual is covered is often determined by a “medical necessity” ruling, made by a bureaucrat. Section 4507 essentially precludes a patient’s ability to purchase a denied (but “covered”) medical service, no matter how badly they want it, or believe they need it.

One can argue, and with some merit, that at this juncture denials of medically necessary services by Medicare have been relatively judicious, and therefore that the “Section 4507 rule” has not had much of an actual impact. In fact, it is likely that most Medicare beneficiaries do not even know that this rule exists.

But while its impact might be relatively small so far, the Section 4507 rule has now been in place for 13 years – it is well-established. So, once Medicare begins reducing reimbursements to physicians and hospitals, to the point where they can no longer afford to offer certain services to Medicare patients (and Medicare has just recently begun doing so, specifically, for some cardiac imaging studies), those patients will be left in the cold. Services which are officially “covered” by Medicare, but which are reimbursed at such a low rate that they cannot actually be provided to them, will become unavailable even to Medicare patients who are willing and able to pay for those services.

DrRich’s main point, once again, is that our government has a deep and abiding need to limit our individual prerogatives when it comes to our healthcare, and has been acting on that need for a long time. The principle for these limitations on our individual liberties, the principle of social justice, has already been established, and has survived court challenges.

Extending these limitations on personal liberties to Obamacare, and broadening their usage, will not require any major changes in direction, or principles, or policy, but will merely require an expansion of already existent – and even “venerable” – rules, rules which have been an established part of Medicare for many years.

DrRich has expressed the idea that such restrictions by our government on such fundamental individual liberties are a very big deal indeed, and, in fact, signal an end to the Great American Experiment. His critics admonish him, however, that he makes too much of it, that, presumably, our government in its benign wisdom is just doing what’s best for us.

DrRich begs his readers to forgive him if he sees, in such a reply, even more evidence that the only nation in the history of mankind to be founded on the principles of individual freedom is well on the way to abandoning those exceptional principles, for the sake of the same, soothing-but-empty blandishments that have been offered, throughout human history, by well-meaning people who end up producing – or becoming – tyrants.

Podcast:

 

 Breaking the Doctor-Patient Relationship (Limiting Individual Prerogatives, Part 3) [20:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (14)

____________

Part 1 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Part 2 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

____________

The thing about Progressives is that the characteristic which makes them most endearing (and, which makes them most attractive to the unaware), is the very characteristic which makes them the most dangerous.

Fundamentally, Progressives believe in the perfectibility of mankind, or at least, of society. Indeed, they have discovered the very Program which will lead to the perfect society, a society which will maximize the good of the whole. Their vision is so compelling, and their ends so utterly and undeniably right, that it becomes legitimate for them to engage in whatever means are necessary to achieve it. (Indeed, for those who have been paying attention, “By Whatever Means Necessary” appears to have supplanted “Hope and Change” as the catchphrase of our current political leaders.)

The thing that always trips up Progressives (and their more revolutionary cousins, the Communists), is, of course, human nature. In order for their Program to work, it is necessary for each individual to behave in the prescribed fashion. And, at the end of the day, a substantial proportion of the population (any population) will insist on striving for their own individual benefit, rather than (as the Program requires) for the benefit of the collective.

The major competing system of societal organization – capitalism – recognizes this facet of human nature (i.e., the essential imperfectability of mankind, as manifested by the non-suppressibility of self-interest), and attempts to channel it into relatively productive and non-destructive (but still competitive and individually-directed) behaviors that limit the damage, and maximize the public good to a reasonable degree.

In contrast, Progressives attempt to change human nature to fit their inherently superior Program.

The fact that you cannot change human nature to fit the Program is what makes them dangerous. Their initial wide-eyed optimism that us folks will just “get it,” once they explain it to us, invariably evolves to an essential contempt for our limited intellectual capacity. This contempt justifies all manner of prevarications, to fool us into going along. Even in societies where the tyranny of correct-thinking has gone so far as to elicit the cooperation of the people at the point of a gun (rather than through the preferred methods of “education” or misdirection), the achievement of the predicted perfect society is invariably prevented by the recalcitrance of human nature. (The final realization that not even an all-powerful central authority can make people behave in the prescribed way always produces a nearly psychotic frustration that – in virtually every Communist country – has led to atrocities against various subsets of the recalcitrant people.)

DrRich does not believe there will ever be pogroms in the United States.

But this does not mean that the Progressives will always be kind and gentle as they attempt to achieve their goals. As DrRich sees it, in the U.S. the Progressives have clearly evolved to the “contempt for the masses” phase of their Program, a phase which justifies all manner of techniques – just this side of violence – to get us all to cooperate. Currently they are intent on demonizing their opponents as being racist, stupid, uneducated, selfish, overly dependent on outmoded supernatural beings, violent, and (of course) obese. This demonization is quite useful, since there is obviously no need to address any actual ideas put forth by such as these, even if they were capable of the feat of “ideas.”

Healthcare is, at present, the chief battleground in the war between Progressives vs. non-Progressives in the U.S., and the outcome of this battle will likely determine the success or failure of the entire Progressive Program. And the most fundamental (and emblematic) aspect of this battle is over what to do about the “doctor-patient relationship.”

The classic doctor-patient relationship was a celebration of the primacy of individual rights. And, for over 2000 years (at least since the advent of the Hippocratic Oath) guaranteeing the sanctity of that relationship was the basis of all medical ethics.

Until very recently doctors, patients, philosophers and ethicists recognized that, when you are sick, you are no more capable of navigating a complex and hostile healthcare system than are accused felons a complex and hostile legal system, and you are no less in peril if you run afoul of that system. And, just as the felon has a right to a personal advocate, a professional whose job is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the “system,” so does the patient. That is (quaint conventional wisdom held), when you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a convenience store. And the doctor-patient relationship was supposed to guarantee you that right.

This is why, throughout the ages, the basic precepts of medical ethics were aimed at guaranteeing the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. Fundamentally, these ethical precepts required the physician to place the needs of his or her individual patient above all other considerations.

It should be clear to everyone that, under either our “old” healthcare system or the one that Obamacare promises us, this formulation of the doctor-patient relationship cannot be allowed to stand. Neither the insurance executives nor government officials can allow spending decisions – that is, decisions on how to spend their money – to be made by individual patients (and their personal advocates). For this reason, the classic doctor-patient relationship had to go.

And so, in 2002, official medical ethics was formally amended to require physicians (while still giving lip service to their obligation to individual patients) to strive for a “just distribution of healthcare resources.” That is, official medical ethics now makes it ethical for physicians to ration healthcare, covertly, at the bedside – and indeed, makes it unethical for them to fail to do so.

The New Ethics has been enthusiastically supported by medical ethicists worldwide (a field which now seems to be dominated by utilitarians), and worse, has been embraced by all the world’s major medical professional organizations. DrRich has not embraced the New Ethics (on the grounds that it places individual patients at great peril, and destroys the profession of medicine), and neither have many (possibly a majority) of older physicians. But it has been taught in medical schools around the world for over a decade, and in another decade it is likely that the vast majority of practicing physicians will accept as a matter of course that their primary obligation is to control healthcare costs, and only secondarily to try to meet the needs of their individual patients.

The plan, therefore, is for Obamacare to provide physicians with directives from expert panels on which medical services to supply to which patients and when, and for the New Ethics to allow physicians who go along with such directives to live with themselves. The feasibility of this plan depends entirely on physicians acceding to the program.

So, incentives are being put in place to “help” doctors cooperate. Quality measures will be implemented, with “quality” being defined as doctors doing what they’re told, and reimbursement will be tied to one’s quality rating. Possibly more persuasive will be the fact that the Feds can construe the failure to follow handed-down rules, regulations and guidelines, at any time, as a federal crime. (Even doctors who don’t mind being labeled as “substandard quality” – perhaps even considering the label as a badge of honor – will mind going to jail.)

But by whatever means necessary, the happiness of the government is to be the doctor’s first consideration, and not the happiness of their individual patients. The classic doctor-patient relationship is being terminated with extreme prejudice.

To see just how important it is to destroy the doctor-patient relationship, one merely has to observe what is happening to primary care doctors who have the audacity to leave the system, and set up a direct-pay medical practice.

Part of the problem, to be sure, was caused by these doctors themselves. The first few to do so unabashedly catered to rich patients, and to attract the rich, referred to themselves as “concierge” practitioners. This name (and its elitist connotations) have been forcibly affixed to all direct-pay practitioners, even as this style of practice has evolved into a much more democratic form. Today, more and more doctors are starting direct-pay practices (in which patients pay the doctors out of their own pockets) which are easily affordable to anyone who can afford a cell phone or cable TV contract.

While many direct-pay practices offer patients certain benefits they can usually not get from primary care doctors who remain in the approved system (such as phone and e-mail access, same-day appointments, appointments lasting as long as necessary instead of the allotted 7.5 minutes, etc.), the fundamental benefit, to both the patient and the doctor, is that it restores the classic doctor-patient relationship. The physician’s primary obligation is no longer to the 3rd-party overlord, or to the Progressive ideal of social justice, but to the patient.

And while critics (who abound) attack direct-pay practitioners for their elitism, laziness, and greed, their real issue is that direct-pay practitioners are acting as if their primary duty is to their individual patients, and not to the needs of society. This latter fault simply cannot be tolerated.

Having gained nearly complete control over the behavior of primary care practitioners, it is critical for Progressives – in making sure that practice by handed-down “guidelines” is not simply the only legal way to practice, but also the only ethical way to practice – to shut the door to any alternative forms of primary care. Direct-pay practitioners are a menace because they threaten to raise the expectations of both doctors and patients. Perhaps, doctors and patients might tell themselves, there really is a way to maintain individual autonomy within the healthcare system.

The attacks on direct-pay practitioners have followed the usual scheme Progressives follow when they discover a faction they need to suppress. First, they were ridiculed. “For a Retainer, Lavish Care by ‘Boutique Doctors,’” said a headline in the New York Times in 2005. Then, they were demonized, widely attacked for their elitism, laziness, greed, and lack of fundamental medical ethics. In this latter effort, it was not difficult to find fellow physicians – generally, from the medical organizations which promulgated the New Ethics – to lead the attacks. There are countless examples. DrRich will give just two.

Anthony DeMaria, then President of the American College of Cardiology, criticized the practice of direct-pay medicine in an article in the JACC in 2005, saying, “Personally, I do not mind if people acquire yachts or personal trainers if they have enough money, nor would I object if they secured a physician at their beck and call. However, unlike yachts, health care is not discretionary, and everyone should be entitled to the same quality.” As a matter of social justice, direct-pay physicians improve healthcare quality for only some patients, and so have no place in the healthcare system.

In an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Troyen A. Brennan (M.D., J.D., and M.P.H., so we know we’re in trouble) really gets to the point. Referring to direct-pay practices as “luxury primary care,” he notes that “traditional medical ethics is rather poorly equipped to address issues related to luxury primary care.” That is, while “traditional” medical ethics always places the individual patient first, that kind of thinking is now outmoded. “(M)ost ethicists now agree that the financial structure of health care is an important subject for ethical consideration. Access to health care, in particular, is a salient ethical issue.” Direct-pay practitioners threaten (by their elitism and the limited size of their practices), to limit access to primary care, and thus are in fundamental violation of medical ethics.

The argument here, for those who missed it (advanced by fellow physicians no less), is that, of the two competing ethical precepts now established by New Medical Ethics (i.e., the physician’s obligation to the individual patient vs. the physician’s obligation to society), clear primacy is to be given to the physician’s obligation to society. Physicians must (like it or not) participate in covert bedside healthcare rationing. Physicians who take the only path remaining to them that allows them to make the individual patient their primary obligation are to be castigated as ethically deficient.

When ridicule and demonization fail to suppress their opposition, Progressive dogma indicates it’s time to resort to force. The first pass in this regard, of course, is always to render the opposition illegal. (Actual violence is reserved for criminals who persist in their misbehavior, despite more polite efforts to get them to behave lawfully.)

Making direct-pay medical practice illegal has not been accomplished yet, but clear efforts have been made in this regard. Noting with alarm the rise of direct-pay primary care, numerous Congresspersons have issued statements of concern, suggesting that perhaps Congress should look into the propriety of such activities.

Indeed, the first step by Congress has already been taken. In 2003, as part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, Congress directed the GAO to study and report on the effect of direct-pay practices on Medicare patients. The GAO did so in 2005, and a fair paraphrase of its report is as follows: “The practice of direct-pay medicine is not currently a threat to Medicare patients, because the direct-pay movement is not large enough yet to have an impact. If it does begin to have an impact on Medicare patients, action will have to be taken.” That is, direct-pay medicine was considered OK in 2005 not because it was inherently an ethical and legal form of medical practice, but simply because there were not enough practitioners at that time to significantly affect Medicare patients. The clear implication is that Congress stands ready to pass laws outlawing – or, at least, severely limiting – direct-pay practices, as soon as those practices begin to “impact” the system.

Certain state governments are not waiting for Congress to ban direct-pay practices. The state of Maryland (and a few others) have taken the creative position that, because many direct-pay practices work on a retainer basis, they meet the definition of a health insurance company. And as a health insurance company, to be considered legal entities, they have to have millions of dollars set aside to pay for unforeseen “claims.” (Interestingly, this same argument was not applied to Maryland lawyers, who also often work on a retainer model.) According to the Baltimore Sun, the state’s stance in this regard has already successfully caused several primary care physicians to abandon their plans to become retainer practitioners.

Less devious (but more draconian) than the state of Maryland is the state of Massachusetts (whose universal healthcare system, we’ve all heard, is a preview of Obamacare circa 2015). A bill is under consideration in the Massachusetts Senate (Bill 2170) which requires doctors, as a condition of their licensure, to accept payment rates as determined by the government. If it passes, it will be the first actual legislation in the U.S. to ban direct-pay medicine, if only by making it completely impracticable. (Thanks to Dr. Wes for pointing out this important development.)

Since medical licensing is controlled by the various states, of course, it would take 50 bills like the one in Massachusetts to really get rid of direct-pay healthcare. But there are other ways for the Feds to accomplish the same thing. Now that the federal government directly controls all student loans, for instance, it would be a simple matter to make those loans contingent on agreeing to become primary care doctors working strictly within the government controlled system, or to offer loan forgiveness for doctors who agree to do so, or to rescind favorable re-payment conditions (retroactively, and decades after the fact, if necessary) for doctors who go to a direct-pay model later in life.

DrRich does not really know how the Progressives will actually place the final nail in the coffin of the doctor-patient relationship. All he knows is that they have – well, more than the desire – the deep and abiding need to kill that relationship, once and for all. Unless we the people decide we ought to stop them, this is going to happen.

____________

Part 4 of Limiting Individual Prerogatives

Last week, DrRich noted that the Covert Rationing Blog and the ACP Advocate Blog were named as co-finalists in 2009 Medical Weblog Award Competition, in the category of Best Health Policy/Ethics Blog. (Voting continues through Feb. 14.) DrRich, ever the opportunist, latched on to this fortuitous occasion to issue a challenge to Bob Doherty, author of the ACP Advocate blog, to engage in a debate over that very topic – medical ethics. He made this audacious challenge because the ACP is a chief signatory of a new code of “medical ethics for a new millennium,” formally promulgated in 2002 by an international group of medical professional organizations (a grouping DrRich has called – for convenience sake only – the Millennialists). And DrRich has taken great exception to this New Ethics, which, he asserts, does great damage to the doctor-patient relationship and to the medical profession. (DrRich details his objection to the New Ethics here, and describes the right way to do medical ethics here.)

A few days ago Mr. Doherty (who is also the ACP’s Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy), graciously agreed to engage in this discussion, and promised to do so after consulting with the ACP’s Committee on Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights.

DrRich had hoped that Mr. Doherty would reply with a post on his ACP blog, which (since it likely has a vastly greater readership than the CRB), would more effectively give this topic some much-needed airing – and in particular, might engage some of the ACP’s membership (specialists in internal medicine) in this important discussion. DrRich was disappointed, then, when the reply came today in the form of a comment, which was tacked on to a long queue of reader’s comments at the end of DrRich’s posting.

DrRich was also very disappointed by the content of the reply which, fundamentally, was: This is a non-issue, and even if it was an issue, it’s now a settled issue. (So go away.)

Because he fears that his readers may not find the ACP’s response (buried as it is), DrRich will post it here in its entirety. But first he will very briefly summarize his complaint against the New Ethics promulgated by the ACP and other Millennialists. The New Ethics takes classical medical ethics (which obligates doctors to always place the welfare of their individual patients first) and adds on to it a new ethical obligation, called Social Justice, which obligates doctors to work toward “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” This new obligation (which is to society) will inherently conflict, at least some of the time, with the physician’s traditional obligation to the individual patient. So, under the New Ethics, the doctor’s loyalty is now officially divided. DrRich asserts that this divided loyalty (which is now declared to be entirely ethical) leaves the patient in a dangerous position, and breaks the profession of medicine.

In the ACP’s response Mr. Doherty begins: “I asked Dr. Virginia Hood, chair of ACP’s Committee on Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights, to respond to Dr. Rich’s post. Her reply is below:”

Much ado?

We are surprised to see the comments about ACP and medical ethics. We urge readers to read the actual text of the ACP Ethics Manual (the College’s Code of Ethics) and the Professionalism Charter, which the College’s Foundation helped develop. Both say that social justice is a consideration in medical ethics, but the physician’s primary responsibility is to his or her patient. Resource allocation decisions are policy decisions and are most appropriately made at the system level, not at the bedside. The Ethics Manual discusses at length the clinician’s primary role as an advocate for individual patients. But it also notes the duty to practice effective health care and use resources responsibly, which are not incompatible with being a patient advocate. As the Manual notes, physicians should not overtest or otherwise overuse services:

Physicians have a responsibility to practice effective and efficient health care and to use health care resources responsibly. Parsimonious care that utilizes the most efficient means to effectively diagnose a condition and treat a patient respects the need to use resources wisely and to help ensure that resources are equitably available [i].

This is nothing new. Indeed using “effective and efficient health care and health care resources responsibly” for all patients is one way to minimize rationing as the result of an over costly system. The Manual also says that physicians and their professional societies should work toward ensuring access to health care for all and the elimination of discrimination, and deficiencies in availability and quality, in health care services. Likewise, the Charter on Medical Professionalism endorsed by ACP and 120 other medical organizations in the USA and internationally, states that professionalism involves commitments to improving quality of care, improving access to care, eliminating discrimination in health care, and yes, to a just distribution of finite resources. But the Charter explains the commitment to a fair distribution of finite resources as follows:

While meeting the needs of individual patients, physicians are required to provide health care that is based on the wise and cost-effective management of limited clinical resources. They should be committed to working with other physicians, hospitals, and payers to develop guidelines for cost-effective care. The physician’s professional responsibility for appropriate allocation of resources requires scrupulous avoidance of superfluous tests and procedures. The provision of unnecessary services not only exposes one’s patients to avoidable harm and expense but also diminishes the resources available for others [ii].

The patient-physician relationship and our medical ethics are the soul of medicine. The blog commentators are correct– it is important that we get it right.

Thank you.

Virginia Hood, MD, FACP
Chair, American College of Physicians Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee

As much as DrRich may feel he has been condescended to here (as if the ACP has found a fly buzzing around its head and has attempted to swat it away), and recognizing that the ACP has decided not to engage in a give-and-take (which, of course is their prerogative), but rather, has responded with a brush-off statement which they have chosen to bury in the comments section of DrRich’s obscure blog (which is also their prerogative), DrRich will attempt to reply as politely and as analytically as possible. (He does, however, sincerely hope that Mr. Doherty – who really seems like a good person and is an excellent writer – will not be called to the woodshed for obligating an august Ethics Committee Chairperson from this prestigious organization to issue a formal response to an annoying blogger such as himself.)

Dr. Hood’s artful (and dismissive, it seems to DrRich) statement can be fairly summarized thusly: After beginning with the implication that DrRich is making much ado (about nothing), and that she is surprised that anyone would dissent from ACP’s New Ethics, she says that the New Ethics does not entail the problem that DrRich alleges; indeed, there really is nothing new about it. Of course patients come first. (Just study the various documents the ACP has published on this point.) Cost-effective and efficient care is a part of good medicine, and always has been. What we mean by a fair distribution of finite resources is to practice medicine wisely, so as not to waste resources and not to expose patients to the risk of medical services they do not need. The legitimacy of the New Ethics is supported by the fact that it has been formally adopted by 120 medical organizations internationally (which to DrRich means that when you go to a doctor anywhere, this is the code of ethics under which they are now officially practicing).

There is a lot in her statement DrRich could comment on, but he does not want to bore his readers with a lengthy parsing of this finely crafted response. Rather, he will just talk about its main point.

Fundamentally, Dr. Hood is denying that there’s any problem. There’s no conflict between “the fair distribution of healthcare resources” and doing what’s best for individual patients – and furthermore, she’s surprised anyone would think so.

DrRich does not accuse her of sophistry. Perhaps she is just deceived.

The fact that there are huge conflicts between providing individuals with all the healthcare that would likely be useful to them, and the inability of society to pay for such a thing, is the fundamental problem with the public funding of healthcare. We simply can’t afford to buy everybody all the healthcare that would likely benefit them. There’s not enough money in the world to do that.

Consider just a few of the examples DrRich has discussed here over the years. Implantable defibrillators have been shown to significantly improve the survival of a substantial minority of patients who have heart disease, and indeed guidelines issued by cardiologists’ professional organizations indicate that defibrillators ought to be implanted at a rate of about five times their current actual implant rate. But if doctors actually did that, it would cost Medicare an extra $7 – $8 billion each year. Then there’s the fact that if doctors used the statin drug Crestor in the way the very well-designed and compelling JUPITER trial says doctors should use it, we would be spending an extra $10 billion per year on Crestor. In a thousand ways, the “best” healthcare for the individual is very often not cheaper (or better for society) than less-good healthcare, and DrRich is impressed that Dr. Hood is willing to say that it is.

Dr. Hood would likely deal with this problem, and implies so, by devising “guidelines” that doctors would be ethically obligated to follow. Obviously, it is entirely possible to convert “guidelines” from just that (i.e., a set of guidelines which doctors ought to take into strong account when deciding what’s best for their individual patients) into a set of formal rules that must be followed, and which will then be enforced by federal regulators (and their posse of ethicists). Indeed, such “guidelines” might be one of the ways in which society imposes its own goals over those of individual patients. But that is not the same thing as insisting that individual patients (who often do not fit the “average” profile) will necessarily profit if doctors always follow the guidelines as a matter of policy, or of enforced expectations, or of “quality”.

(Further, as DrRich has pointed out, the rapidly developing paradigm in which “guidelines” are becoming inviolate rules has led competing organizations to rush to issue their own sets of competing guidelines, that best comport with their individual agendas. While this phenomenon of “guideline wars” is endlessly amusing, it may not always serve the best interests of doctors or their patients.)

And then there’s the problem that, no matter how you define “waste” or “inefficiency” or “unnecessary care,” there simply cannot be enough of it to account for the runaway healthcare inflation we’re seeing (as DrRich has shown here). A substantial proportion of this fiscally disastrous healthcare inflation must necessarily derive from the delivery of healthcare that is actually useful.

So the crux of Dr. Hood’s reply – that all the ACP is talking about when it mandates that doctors fairly distribute limited resources is that they ought to practice good medicine, and if they did that simple thing no useful therapy would need to be withheld from any individual patient – is absurd on its face.

DrRich would be less disturbed by Dr. Hood’s assertion if he really thought it was simply a misapprehension of the truth. And perhaps it is. After all, her statement reads as if she is truly surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

Perhaps Dr. Hood came to her high station within the ACP’s Ethics Committee very recently, and is unaware of the history of the new Professionalism Charter which advanced this New Ethics, or of the controversy that was raised by many critics at the time of its adoption, or indeed, of some of the language that was in its penultimate version (and that was likely removed to silence some of those critics). Indeed, she cannot be aware if it, since she is “surprised to see” that anyone is bothered by the Charter, and since she believes that questioning it is but “much ado.” But to anyone who knows a little of that history, Dr. Hood’s assertion that controversy over this Charter is a novel experience, or most especially, her assertion that this New Ethics is really “nothing new,” would come as a very great surprise indeed.

First, we should note, if the new Professionalism Charter was really “nothing new,” and was just a restatement of the physician’s traditional obligation to place the patient first, and if fairly distributing society’s resources really was just a matter of practicing good medicine, then there would have been no need for a new Charter of medical ethics in the first place. And certainly the need would not have been pressing. It would have served quite nicely instead to produce some sort of document reminding doctors that unneeded healthcare services expose their patients to unneeded risk, so (based on the traditional ethical precept of patient welfare), to remain ethical they must stop being wasteful. Certainly, this kind of wasteful medicine would not produce a need to redefine medical ethics.

But the new Charter’s very first sentence describes something more dire, more pressing, than can be explained by Dr. Hood’s benign assertions. It says, “Physicians today are experiencing frustration as changes in the health care delivery systems in virtually all industrialized countries threaten the very nature and values of medical professionalism.” So: the whole purpose of this new Charter, its entire impetus, was the frustration of physicians.

Frustration? What frustration is that? Interestingly, the document does not come right out and say it. The closest it comes to spelling it out is to say, “We share the view that medicine’s commitment to the patient is being challenged by external forces of change within our societies.”

But even though the document seems strangely reticent about spelling out which frustration produced the very impetus for its creation, we can rely on the fact that the document must be designed to cure this mysterious frustration (whatever it is), and that the only revolutionary change in the document is an addition to the code of medical ethics requiring physicians to work for “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” We can only conclude that this new ethical obligation is meant as a cure for that foundational frustration, and that therefore this frustration must be that doctors are finding it impossible to meet their traditional ethical obligation to to place their patients’ needs first.

But, as it happens, we do not really have to resort to this sort of documentary detective work to parse out the purpose of the new Professionalism Charter. That purpose was quite open at the time this document was being developed – and it produced robust controversy that was certainly no secret. One can read about this controversy in many places, but for our purposes now (i.e., in replying to Dr. Hood’s assertion that there’s nothing new here, and that it is a matter of some astonishment that anyone would find the Physicians Charter controversial) it might be best to refer to one of the ACP’s own publications from that time.

An article in the July, 2001 ACP-ASIM Observer, which was entitled, “Charter on medical professionalism addresses issues of finite resources,” goes into some length about the controversy. And it is very plain that the objection many raised to the new Charter was precisely that which DrRich is raising now in his challenge to the ACP: that the New Ethics being espoused in the Professionalism Charter fundamentally and explicitly divides the loyalty of the physician between the patient’s needs and society’s needs. When one listens to the defenders of the new Charter (quoted extensively in the ACP-ASIM Observer article), one finds the unmistakable tones of utilitarianism: We have to change our ethical precepts, the argument goes, because that’s just the way the world works now.

This article also indicates that the draft of the Physicians Charter presented to ACP general membership at their annual meeting in 2001, a few months before the final version was finally published, was perhaps more forthcoming than the final version, regarding what it was really all about. For instance, this nearly-final version of the Charter specifically admonished physicians that they must “be aware that the decisions they make about individual patients have an impact on the resources available to others.” One can only assume that this sort of explicit language was taken out of that final version in response to the critics (who were many, and vocal) to soften the blow.

Indeed, the “softer” language of this strange final version (which has all the hallmarks of a heavily edited document, beginning as it does with a heartfelt cry against the frustrations being experienced by physicians, then neglecting to spell out what those frustrations are, and never explicitly saying which aspect of the document addresses those frustrations), is now possibly soft enough, if not read carefully, to allow defenders of the Professionalism Charter to get away with asserting (as Dr. Hood has done) that the New Ethics is really pretty much the same as the old ethics, and does not change anything. (So move along, move along.)

But the New Ethics changes everything.

DrRich is very sorry about this, and is especially sorry that the ACP’s Ethics Committee, and the other 120 physicians organizations that have adopted this New Ethics, insist they do not see a problem here. DrRich assumes by this response that the ACP has little interest in revisiting its new ethical stance, and further, is undoubtedly busily training today’s medical students that doing what’s best for society is the same as doing what’s best for the individual.

This is a theme, DrRich thinks, he’s heard a lot lately.

Patients who want a true advocate in their life-and-death encounters with the healthcare system, an advocate whose loyalty is not divided between them and a society that, with increasing desperation, wants not to spend its money on them, had better go out and hire their own. Your doctor will now find it officially unethical to serve that office him-or-herself.

And meanwhile, we can now be sure that the physicians organizations which are responsible for protecting the ethical foundation of the profession of medicine are quite satisfied with the job they are doing.

In his last post, and not without some little trepidation over the propriety of doing so, DrRich offered to enter into a “constructive dialogue” with Bob Doherty of the ACP Advocate Blog, regarding the important topic of medical ethics. What occasioned this offer was the fortuitous selection of each of us as finalists in the 2009 Medical Weblog Award Competition, in the category of Best Health Policy/Ethics Blog.

Ever since the inception of the Covert Rationing Blog (and even before that, in his book) DrRich has taken strong exception to the new code of “medical ethics for a new millennium,” formally promulgated in 2002 by the American College of Physicians and several of its equally respected sister organizations (a grouping DrRich has termed the Millennialists). And when he saw that the ACP Advocate Blog (an official publication of a principle component of the Millennialists) had become a co-finalist for a Weblog Award in the category of medical ethics, DrRich could not resist offering to engage in a discussion over same.

DrRich is delighted to report that Bob Doherty, who, in addition of being the author of the ACP Advocate Blog, is also the ACP’s Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs and Public Policy, has graciously agreed to the suggested exchange of ideas. Mr. Doherty reports that he will be posting a reply to DrRich’s “challenge,” once he finishes consulting with the ACP’s Center for Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights. And so, dear readers, it appears that DrRich (your humble correspondent) has gotten himself into a situation. It appears he will be engaging – at his own instigation, no less – with actual, certified experts on medical ethics, regarding the topic: medical ethics.

DrRich can almost hear some of his loyal readers gasping: “Why, he’ll be skinned alive!”

But fear not. DrRich will not hurt him. DrRich does not flay anybody, and promises to remain entirely civil and friendly in this exchange. DrRich, upon his honor, will see to it that Mr. Doherty (and whatever friends he may enlist in the cause) will emerge from this encounter entirely intact, integumentarily speaking.

In fact, to show his great good faith (and to level the playing field), DrRich will now break with all the conventions of debate, and before Mr. Doherty posts his reply, will lay the rest of his cards upon the table, so that the opposition will have the advantage of knowing ALL of DrRich’s arguments before they commit themselves to an answer. That is how dedicated DrRich is to keeping this competition friendly and respectful and fair.

DrRich’s Argument So Far

In his previous, challenge-issuing post, DrRich described how the “New Ethics” advanced by the Millennialists obligates the physician to strive for the ethical precept of Social Justice, which is to say, for “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” So the doctor is now charged with deciding which patients may receive, and which may not receive, certain healthcare resources. To say it another way, under this new conception of medical ethics the doctor is assigned the duty to ration healthcare, covertly, at the bedside.

DrRich further described how this New Ethics fundamentally wrecks the doctor-patient relationship, and thus leaves patients to their own devices within a hostile healthcare system. In addition DrRich asserted that, once they adopted this New Ethics, physicians surrendered their claim to the title “professional,” and accordingly, made themselves fair game to whatever treatment, tactic, or travesty that any more powerful interest group (such as trial lawyers or Congress or regulators or insurers) may choose to foist upon them. Physicians no longer have any ethical standing for turning such attacks aside. Rather, as non-professionals, their ability to withstand attacks can only be proportionate to whatever socioeconomic or political pressure they can muster. So, as DrRich sees it, the New Ethics promulgated by the Millennialists is pretty much a disaster for both doctors and patients.

This is the extent of the argument DrRich has advanced so far.

Here Are The Rest Of DrRich’s Cards

The Millennialists did get one thing right in this effort. They correctly diagnosed the fact that old-fashioned, “classic” medical ethics, as advantageous as it may have been to both patients and doctors, is no longer consistent with reality.

Under classical medical ethics, the doctor’s one and only ethical obligation was to the individual patient. And so, classic ethics did not allow for any limits whatsoever on the medical services a patient may receive. If some bit of available medical care might offer even a small nugget of hope, doctors were obligated to provide it, no matter how expensive it might be to do so.

It is important to recognize that classic medical ethics evolved during a time when medical technology was relatively primitive, limited, and cheap, and more importantly, at a time when patients paid for their own healthcare. So when classic medical ethics was formulated, “healthcare spending limits” (though nobody talked in such terms back then), were self-imposed, by the patient.

But over the past 60 years medical technology has become very advanced and very expensive. And even more to the point, we have evolved a payment system in which people who receive healthcare are spending not their own funds, but rather, are spending publicly-funded, pooled resources. (Those pooled resources are either funded directly through the government, or are subsidized by the public indirectly, through tax-deductable insurance premiums).

It is this collective funding arrangement that has made classic medical ethics obsolete. It is neither feasible nor ethical to leave all decisions on how to spend society’s pooled healthcare dollars to individual doctors and individual patients, who can “take” as much of this pooled resource as they think they’d like to have, with absolutely no constraints. Such an arrangement eventually and inevitably leads to fiscal ruin.

By the 1990s, because spending limits were absolutely necessary, but at the same time classic medical ethics precluded setting such limits, doctors were being coerced by the private insurers and government payers to establish those limits covertly, through bedside rationing. This was the problem faced by the Millennialists when they set out to reformulate medical ethics, and they were right to make the attempt.

But unfortunately, this is where the Millennialists dropped the ball and, as DrRich has shown, settled upon an answer that just made things worse.

The Right Medical Ethics

Medical ethics would be “right” if it could be made to comport with the classic notion that the doctor’s primary obligation is to his/her individual patients (thus preserving the classic doctor-patient relationship), and yet still respected society’s need to control the spending of its pooled resources. That is, the “right” ethics will recognize both society’s needs and the needs of individual patients, will recognize that those two sets of legitimate needs are often in conflict, and will provide an ethical framework for resolving these conflicts.

That ethical framework, DrRich is pleased to announce, is not that hard to conceptualize.

We can solve this problem if we think of the ethics of healthcare as being organized into two concentric spheres. The outer sphere holds the ethical precepts adopted by society to guide the behavior of the healthcare system for the benefit of the entire population; for example, to set overall limits on spending. These outer-sphere precepts help to ensure that the needs of society as a whole are served in an ethical manner by the healthcare system.

Contained within (and therefore subject to) that outer sphere of societal precepts is an inner sphere, which holds the ethical precepts that govern the behavior of individual doctors and patients within the healthcare system. Inner-sphere precepts help to ensure that the rights and needs of individual patients are addressed in an ethical manner.

So, while the physician’s primary ethical obligation must always be for the benefit of the individual patient, and therefore the physician must operate according to ethical precepts that honor this duty to individual patients (the inner-sphere precepts), their behavior must also conform with the ethical constraints imposed by society on the entire population (the outer-sphere precepts).

We can think of the inner-sphere precepts as an immutable core of ethical beliefs that serve the fundamental American commitment to the autonomy of the individual, and of the outer sphere as a coating, fashioned by society and therefore changeable, that places an adjustable (and ethically derived) limit on the individual’s ability to consume pooled resources.

The Inner Sphere – Ethical Precepts For Individuals

The inner sphere of ethical precepts – the core – fully preserves the two precepts of classic medical ethics: the precept of Patient Welfare, which requires the doctor to always act to the benefit of his/her individual patient; and the precept of Patient Autonomy, which requires the doctor to respect the individual patient’s right to medical self-determination. So the inner sphere precepts completely restore the physician’s sacred obligation to the interests of their individual patients. And thus, also restored are both the classic doctor-patient relationship, and medical professionalism.

But while individual welfare and individual autonomy are critical (and comprise the chief ethical obligations of the physician), there are still legitimate limits to what the patient (and doctor) can reasonably expect to receive from pooled resources. When a patient demands that everything possible be done for them, they are exceeding the bounds of autonomy if doing “everything” means that other individuals would thereby be deprived of what otherwise would be rightfully their fair share of those pooled resources. These necessary bounds on individual autonomy are defined by the outer sphere.

The Outer Sphere – Ethical Precepts For Society.

Under any equitable healthcare system we are going to have to carefully define our outer sphere ethical norms, because those are the standards that bound and govern the inner-sphere behaviors of individual doctors and patients. This “outer sphere ethics” is also comprised of two ethical precepts, Societal Beneficence and Distributive Justice.

Societal Beneficence (or social welfare) requires the healthcare system to attempt to maximize the overall public good realized from whatever pooled resources society expends on healthcare. Social welfare is not the same as patient welfare, because what is optimal for an individual patient may often reduce the overall benefit to society, and vice versa.

Distributive Justice requires the benefits of the healthcare system to be distributed fairly, that is, in a way that does not discriminate against individuals or groups based on who they are.

The outer-sphere precepts honor society’s right to accrue optimal benefits from whatever collective resources society provides toward healthcare. That is, the outer-sphere precepts recognize society’s legitimate interest in limiting and equitably distributing those collective resources – and indeed, recognizes its ethical obligation to do so.

Medical Ethics And the Spheres

With this framework it is easy to see why the American healthcare system is presently inequitable and unethical. A hallmark of our present system is the lack (thanks to our culture of no limits) of any attempt to define effective outer-sphere societal norms, which would bound the appropriate behavior of individual physicians and patients. This deficiency makes it entirely feasible, and very common, for some patients to soak up a disproportionate share of publicly funded healthcare resources, while others (though they are also paying into the system) are left with next to nothing.

Achieving equity should have nothing whatever to do with adjusting the inner-sphere precepts. Individuals in the United States (to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence) have a self-evident right to their individual autonomy. The inner-sphere precepts are granted to us by our founding documents, and as Americans we should avoid modifying the inner-sphere precepts at all costs, since, once we do, we are abandoning our foundational principles. (This means that the Millennialists have done more damage, with their New Ethics, than merely harming doctors and patients. They have begun – or continued – undermining the principle of individual autonomy upon which the United States was founded. ) (Sorry to have to mention it.)

It is the outer-sphere precepts – those that can be negotiated legitimately by society, and which can legitimately limit the scope of inner-sphere behaviors – that we need to get into proper order.

A properly functioning system of medical ethics, therefore, would require society to devise workable outer-sphere precepts, and through these ethical precepts, establish transparent rules for setting necessary limits on collective healthcare spending. Then, within that system of rules, doctors and patients would work together, under a fully restored doctor-patient relationship, to assure that every patient has access to all legitimately available medical options. And the doctor would be allowed (and expected) to leave no stone unturned in obtaining those legitimate medical services for his/her patient.

This arrangement is analogous to the attorney-client relationship, where the attorney, acting within the bounds imposed by the law (outer sphere norms), is expected to do everything within his/her power to see that the client gains every conceivable, allowable advantage (inner sphere behavior) as they navigate the complex legal system.

To further illustrate this point, we Americans are now engaged in a debate over whether the Christmas Underwear Bomber ought to be eligible to receive all the legal protections afforded to an American citizen under the law. It is notable that ALL the discussion in this case is in regard to whether American outer-sphere legal norms should apply to the terrorist. Nobody is suggesting that his attorney ought to abrogate his (or her, as the case may be) sacred “inner-sphere” obligations to this client, in order to achieve some sort of “fair distribution” of society’s legitimate interests. Nobody expects the terrorist’s attorney to refrain from advising him remain silent, for instance, even though that silence may expose us all to substantial additional harm. The lawyer’s inner-sphere obligations are secure, even here. Rather, the argument we’re having is strictly limited to how we should apply outer-sphere legal protections to this case.

It is the right argument to have. And it’s the very argument we should be having in regard to medical ethics.

And as much as DrRich does not like lawyers, he very much admires the tenacity with which they have preserved their fiduciary relationship with their clients – even in cases like this one. If physicians (and their organizations) had behaved with the professional integrity displayed by the despised attorneys, doctors and their patients would be in much less difficulty today.

A Plea

It is instructive to re-consider the New Ethics, which now has been formally implemented by the Millennialists, in light of DrRich’s proposed two-sphere system of ethics (which he audaciously labels “right ethics,” but to show his humility he will not use caps). The New Ethics can be seen to have resulted by the simple expedient of moving the outer-sphere principles of Societal Beneficence and Distributive Justice (lumped together as Social Justice) down into the inner sphere, where individual doctors are expected to deal with them.

You can’t actually do that, of course, because these are intrinsically outer-sphere norms. But nonetheless, New Ethics formally puts doctors into the position of having to serve the best interest of their patients (individual beneficence and autonomy) while at the same time, covertly rationing their patients’ healthcare (societal beneficence and distributive justice). It is quite impossible for individual physicians to reconcile these competing interests in any equitable sense, and charging them with the job of doing so is illogical, nonsensical – and (DrRich respectfully submits) unethical.

Doctors and patients would be much better served if physicians’ professional organizations, such as the ACP, would revisit their new-age Physician’s Charter on ethics. DrRich understands that our modern society is exceedingly reluctant to establish outer-sphere rules for limiting pooled healthcare resources, and for distributing them equitably. But that reluctance is not a sufficient justification for physicians themselves, through their professional organizations, to initiate and implement new ethical standards that sacrifice their sacred obligation to their patients.

My goodness, can we not muster up at least the ethical sensibilities of lawyers?

Yesterday, DrRich noted (with his usual affecting humility, modesty, self-deprecation, &c.) that the Covert Rationing Blog has been named a Finalist in the 2009 Medical Weblog Award Competition, in the category of Best Health Policy/Ethics Blog. He now calls to his readers’ attention the fact that, among the other two finalists – both of which are of very high quality and undoubtedly are more deserving of this award than DrRich – is none other than the ACP Advocate Blog.

The ACP Advocate Blog, written by Bob Doherty, is a publication of the American College of Physicians, and its purpose is to explain, elaborate on and advocate for the ACP’s positions on important matters related to health policy and medical ethics that affect its members, namely, internal medicine specialists. Doherty – who DrRich does not know, but of whom he has heard many very complimentary things – is an insightful analyst of matters related to healthcare policy, and to boot he is an excellent writer. DrRich is a loyal reader of the ACP Advocate Blog, which in fact has habitually led off DrRich’s blogroll.

Here’s why this is interesting. While both the ACP Advocate Blog and DrRich’s blog are finalists in the medical ethics category, it so happens that DrRich and the ACP are far apart on that very issue. DrRich (himself formerly a proud member of the ACP for over 30 years) has been a vocal critic of the ACP’s stand on medical ethics, ever since it joined a group of professional organizations a few years ago to formulate “Medical Ethics for a New Millenium.” DrRich believes that this “new medical ethics” is harmful to patients and to the medical profession alike, and has not been bashful about saying so.

So here we are – DrRich and the ACP Advocate Blog – both selected, as fate would have it, as co-finalists in the venerable Medical Weblog Award Competition in the category of medical ethics, when, regarding this very topic, the former has been quite vocal and persistent about criticizing the latter. Meanwhile, DrRich’s effusions on the subject have been completely ignored by the ACP in general, and by Doherty in particular. Now let’s be clear – DrRich does not blame them in the least for failing to respond to his criticisms, since they are very likely completely unaware of his existence (being, as he is, merely one tiny voice in a great sea of blogospheric pontificators). Also, truth be told, even if they were aware of DrRich’s criticisms, prestigious organizations such as the ACP do not owe a debt of response or recognition to every lone crackpot who criticizes them or their policies. If they had such an obligation, then how would they ever get any work done?

But still and all, here we are, fellow finalists.

So what, prithee, is the correct etiquette here? Quite likely, the correct thing for DrRich to do would be to avoid disharmony, to ignore the tension built-in to this unasked-for situation, to pretend there is no major point of contention over medical ethics between himself and one of the other medical ethics finalists, to spend the next couple of weeks writing about some other of his favorite subjects – how fat people prevent global warming, say, or on the most politically correct way to move old farts expeditiously into the next life – and, for propriety’s sake, to simply leave contentious medical ethics alone for another time.

But really, where’s the fun in that?

Plus, medical ethics is important. In fact, DrRich believes that the very point of contention, between the ACP’s conception of medical ethics and his own, is of such critical importance as to define the ultimate viability of the medical profession itself, and more importantly, the actual, physical (life-and death) viability of patients. And this being the case, it would be a shame – and possibly unethical – to let the subject just lie there, at the very time when taking it up might at last engender some of the give-and-take the subject sorely needs, and failing that, at least might gain a broader audience than it has had to date. (For DrRich has discussed this all before, but to little avail.) Such a broader awareness could be useful, since doctors and patients who fully understand the danger in which this new system of ethics has placed them can take the steps necessary to protect themselves (and each other).

And so, at the risk of being impolitic, impolite, boorish, boring, incorrect or incorrigible, and quite likely at the risk of rendering himself completely unworthy of his status as a finalist in the Medical Weblog Award Competition, and possibly even at the risk of forfeiting his status as same (though he has not been apprised of any particular rules he may be about to violate), DrRich hereby lays down the following proposition, and cordially invites the ACP Advocate Blog (or any other interested or offended party) to reply:

A Proposition

The New Medical Ethics, as espoused by the ABIM Foundation, ACP-ASIM Foundation, and the European Federation of Internal Medicine (hereafter referred to collectively as the Millennialists), and as laid out in a tract entitled, “Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter,” (Annals of Internal Medicine, February 5, 2002, vol. 136, pages 243-246), is deficient in the following ways:

• it undermines the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship,
• it threatens to fundamentally destroy medicine as a legitimate profession, and
• it places patients at grave personal risk whenever they encounter the healthcare system.

Just so.

What’s Wrong With the New Ethics?

To see how the “New Ethics” declared by the Millennialists is harmful, it is useful to first review old-fashioned, or “classic” medical ethics.

Classically, doctors have been obligated to recognize two ethical precepts: Patient Welfare and Patient Autonomy.

The precept of Patient Welfare (also called the precept of beneficence, or “first, do no harm”), obligates the doctor to always behave in a way that accrues to the benefit of the individual patient. The needs of the individual patient come first, and must be the doctor’s primary concern, above, for instance, personal and financial considerations.

Under the precept of Patient Autonomy, patients are acknowledged to have the right to self-determination regarding their own healthcare. Fundamentally, this means that patients have the right to know, and the doctor is obligated to inform them, of any and all information that might help them make their decisions regarding their own healthcare.

So classically, doctors were obligated to do whatever they must to assure that their individual patients were fully informed about all their medical options, and to act to assure that their individual patients got the care they needed (as long as, fully informed, they agreed to it).

By the late 1990s, however, the Millennialists – quite correctly as it turns out – detected a severe problem with this classic medical ethics. Namely, modern physicians were, to a very large extent, unable to comport with it. Quite simply, this is because under a system of covert healthcare rationing (such as was in full bloom even by that time), doctors cannot follow these two precepts. It is not possible for doctors to ration healthcare covertly, at the bedside, and at the same time fully honor their patient’s welfare and autonomy.

The problem was explicitly recognized as early as 1998, in an article by Hall and Berenson in the Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 128, p 395) which stated: “It is untenable for the medical profession to continue asserting an idealistic ethic that is contradicted so openly in clinical practice. . .We propose that devotion to the best medical interests of each individual patient be replaced with an ethic of devotion to the best medical interests of the group. . .”

This influential article, among other things, led to the formation of a commission to study the issue (the issue being, apparently, that if it becomes difficult to follow ethical precepts, then one ought to go ahead and change them). And this commission led to the Millennialists and their New Ethics.

The innovation of the Millennialists was to proclaim a third ethical precept: the precept of Social Justice. The precept of Social Justice charges physicians with effecting “the fair distribution of healthcare resources.” That is, it directs doctors to decide which patients ought to get those limited resources, and which ought not to get them. It specifically and directly justifies bedside rationing by doctors.

The reason this third ethical precept was deemed necessary is explicitly because doctors cannot any longer adhere to the other two. (”It is untenable. . .to continue asserting an idealistic ethic,” according to Hall and Berenson. “Indeed, the medical profession must contend with complicated political, legal, and market forces,” [emphasis DrRich’s] according to the Millennialists.)

Ostensibly, the precept of Social Justice gives doctors who are too introspective (admittedly, not a big problem with many of us) an out when they find themselves having to place the interests of payers ahead of the interests of their patients by, say, failing to mention certain medical options that might be available. “Sure, I’m violating Precepts One and Two,” they can now tell themselves, “but I’ve got to do that to honor Precept Three.”

The bottom line is that, having been coerced by the the insurers and the government (who utterly control the doctors’ professional viability) to place the payers’ needs ahead of the needs of patients, doctors found themselves in utter violation of their fundamental ethical precepts. The proper response of physicians (and their professional organizations such as the ACP) would have been to reassert those ethical obligations, to push back against the payers, and enlist the cooperation of their patients (who, after all, have a particularly vital interest in the matter) in doing so. Instead, they have taken a path of lesser resistance, re-defining medical ethics to comport with their new, coerced behavior.

What Does This “New Ethics” Do To the Doctor-Patient Relationship?

The addition of the precept of Social Justice to the ethical obligations of the physician renders the doctor-patient relationship inoperative.

The doctor-patient relationship is critical to the professional survival of the doctor, but it is critical to the actual survival of the patient. Consider that patients – especially when they are sick – are no more capable of navigating a complex healthcare system (whose chief concern, increasingly, is minimizing spending at any price) than are, say, accused felons a complex legal system. And patients are no less in peril than the felon if they run afoul of that system.

Society explicitly recognizes the right of the accused felon to an advocate, a professional whose job it is to protect his individual interests against the conflicting aims of the “system,” and who is expected to leave no stone unturned in guaranteeing his rights and prerogatives under the law. A patient’s need of a similar advocate is no less acute than that of the felon. (When you are sick, you should be entitled to at least the same protections as when you rob a gas station.) And the doctor-patient relationship is supposed to see that you have such an advocate.

Over the ages the doctor-patient relationship has been defined, through rules of ethics and rules of law, as a fiduciary one. When a patient seeks a physician’s help and the physician agrees to give that help, a special covenant is made. The patient agrees to take the physician into her confidence, to reveal to him even the most secret and intimate information related to her health. The physician, in turn, agrees to honor that trust, and to become the patient’s advocate in all matters related to her health, placing her interests above all others – including the doctor’s own personal or financial concerns.

The New Ethics breaks that covenant from the outset. It renders “ethical” the divided loyalty of the physician. Today, when patients go to a doctor for medical advice, they do not know – and cannot know – whether that advice is being given to advance primarily the patient’s own well-being, or the well-being of the society that desires a “fair distribution of healthcare resources.” With the formal adoption of this New Ethics, patients have been essentially cut loose, and set adrift to fend for themselves in an increasingly hostile healthcare system, without being able to rely on the kind of personal advocate they’ve been conditioned to expect, the kind of advocate an accused murderer is awarded without question or hesitation.

Less obvious, but no less profound, are the consequences of this New Ethics to the profession of medicine. Abandoning their primary obligation to the individual patient means that physicians have committed the “original sin.” They have abdicated their traditional, ethical, and legal roles as patient advocates; they have broken a sacred pact. They have fully compromised themselves as professionals; indeed they have become professionals in name only, and not in fact. And as a result, to their utter frustration, they find themselves standing naked before their enemies, the very insurers and regulators who forced them to abdicate their sacred obligation in the first place.

DrRich finds it exceedingly sad that the ACP and other professional organizations, in an honest effort to protect their membership, and thus to devise a form of medical ethics which comports to the realities of the day, have ended up wrecking the doctor-patient relationship, and in the process have done great material harm to patients, and fatal professional harm to the very physicians whose ethical sensibilities they sought to protect.

DrRich does not imply evil intent to anyone here – not even to the insurance companies and the regulators (whose actions to coerce covert rationing are, really, just an effort to fulfill the job our society has assigned to them). Indeed, DrRich assumes all parties involved are sincerely trying to do the right thing. And so DrRich (ever your cheerful optimist!) sees a way out of the ethical dilemma.

That way out requires a new way of thinking about medical ethics – the “right” way, if he may be so bold – and in his next post DrRich will describe it.

In the meantime, DrRich is a bit distressed over his violation of the traditional civility of the blogosphere, for his possibly having abused the honor bestowed on him in his selection as a finalist in the Medical Weblog Competition, and indeed, for exposing himself to the accusation of initiating a Medical Ethics Smack Down. So if some of his readers choose to punish him for this untoward behavior by voting for the ACP instead of the Covert Rationing Blog, DrRich will understand.