Should Medicine Be A Self Regulating Profession

Katz states, “the conviction that physicians should decide what is best for their patients, and, therefore, that the authority and power to do so should remain bested in them, continued to have deep hold on the practices of the medical profession “(214).

With the statement, “warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon 's knife or the chemist 's drug” physicians are given the responsibility to step down from their systematic ways of scientific thinking and make decisions on the level of human kind. The modern oath also provides for the necessary address of issues in liability in relation with a physicians judgment. This is predominately done by promoting the uniting of colleagues and defending a physicians right to be unsure in a world of so many unknowns. This acceptance and appreciation is essential for fostering a comradely among physicians that challenges each to think independently, dispute their own peers and still be conducive of making advancements.

After ensuring the preservation of medicinal practices and knowledge, the consequences of it are realized through guiding ideas. The Hippocratic Oath affirms, “I will keep [my patients] from harm and injustice.” Doctors swear by contributing to the wellbeing of patients, ignoring the various personal effects of ego, sexual interest and human tendency to gossip. Doctors must be able to admit to inability in order to make sound judgements. This would mean diagnosis to the best of their ability, and nothing beyond their ability: “I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment" (Hippocrates). The oath calls on doctors not to abuse their societal power or fall prey to their desires: “I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations" (Hippocrates). The oath further protects the patient’s emotional wellbeing by restricting the doctor from disclosing details surrounding the patient’s physical condition. The oath makes clear, “What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about" (Hippocrates). With the words “In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art"

“The only appropriate and realistic model of the Dr.‐patient relationship is paternalism. Doctors are the medical experts; most patients have little, if any, reliable medical knowledge; implicit trust in one’s physician is essential to the healing process; and doctors have the responsibility for our health and therefore have the duty to make all the important medical decisions.” Critically assess that claim.

Edmund Pellegrino’s account of virtue based ethics practiced by a physician reaches an extremely high moral standard and involves the expression, at the highest level, of benevolence, temperance, fidelity to trust, integrity, justice and compassion which goes over and above what is strictly required of a physician; whereas, legal and rights-based ethical conceptions involve a physician adhering to the duties imposed on them by the laws of the land-such as physician licensure, good Samaritan laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., and medical ethics codes and duties which are more obligations and duties to what strict ethics spells out.

At first glance, this case might appear to be ethically sound and the conduct of Dr. Fox was that of a normal Western doctor. However, upon further analysis a large number of issues arise. The debate over whether to inform

Elite groups and associations have developed creeds or oaths throughout history. Doctors, lawyers, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs, and knights all aspire to hold to their directives. These oaths outline a set of values, and a code of conduct by which the group’s initiates are expected to hold. The oaths taken by these warrior classes are important for trust between members that, in grave circumstances, a behavior in accordance with high standards is to be expected. On a different professional level, a lawyer’s or doctor’s oath is to the people they serve. These oaths serve to instill confidence in the professional-to-patient relationship by establishing a standard of professional accountability within their respective fields. The Hippocratic Oath is purported to be a foundation for ethics and the practice of medicine. Though it exists in different versions, depending on the institution, the general themes and function remain the same (Markel). Any oath taken is meant to elevate the level of expectations for services rendered. In practice, however, especially in cases of medical oaths, it appears that the oaths are ceremonial and apparently obsolete. A survey conducted in 2012 noted that very few physicians had better than a rudimentary knowledge of the content of The Hippocratic Oath (Jhala and Jhala 279). If the Hippocratic Oath or any oath is intended to be the moral and ethical compass for physicians, it should be taken with an enforceable level of accountability and

This paper will breakdown the difference between clinical and institutional ethics. How this can cause conflict between healthcare and society. Thus, providing an example of how healthcare professionals can be conflicted when trying to provide the best quality care or a compassionate treatment outcome.

Physician licensure has been a long debated issue in health economics, with health professionals expressing their support for it and health economists arguing against it. Critics have argued that licensure has resulted in only benefiting physicians forcing economists to propose creative theories as to how licensure can assure quality. The literature on licensure has grown with time with theories suggesting the benefit of certification over licensure. One of the most prominent argument for physician licensure was put forth by Arrow in 1963.

In the United States, state laws dictate the abilities and skills medical professional would need to perform in a medical professional’s scope of practice and sets the legal boundaries in which they can work within. Due to an increasing influx of patient care that is needed due to the Affordable Care Act, the scope of practice boundaries are being crossed, which in turn has turned many legislative heads but not in a positive light. Since the issues in medical errors are being brought to the fore front it has become controversial and now legislature is asking the states to look into restructuring the scope of practices in all areas the medical industry. Without restructuring patient care will continue to be poor or inadequate and litigation will continue to rise due to poor patient care, incorrect testing, ineffective specimen collection, missed diagnosis, and poor supervision and communication. Death related cases due to medical errors are the 5th largest in the United States which makes it the 5th leading cause of death in the United States. Many medical errors are actually billed and paid for by insurance companies and the physician receives payment for the errors. The United States spends billions on litigation per year and therefore restructuring the medical industry could save the United States millions of dollars per year and make for a safer over all environment for everyone.

In the administration of medical services in the United States law and regulation now control much of professional life. (p. 586)

The response you have given this week is well written, moreover, you made some valid points about medical review boards. In the case of Harold Shipman, the lives of three individuals could have been saved had a thorough investigation been conducted (Biography.com Editors, 2017). The previous charges of drug abuse, as well as prescription forgery, should have resulted in more than a fine (Bunyan, 2001). The General Medical Council should have continued to monitor Harold Shipman throughout his career, moreover, considered seriously revoking his license to practice medicine. The murders perpetrated by Harold Shipman are believed to have begun almost immediately when he began practicing medicine in 1974.

This edition consists of nine chapters divided into three parts, as well as an appendix of ten biomedical ethics cases. In Part I, chapter 1, entitled "Moral Norms," introduces the decision-making framework with attention to specifying and balancing principles and rules for moral deliberation and decision-making. Chapter 2, entitled "Moral Character," elaborates on moral virtues and ideals as an often-neglected area in biomedical ethics. In Part II, chapters 3 through 6 present the four basic groups of principles, and chapter 7, "Professional-Patient Relationships," examines the moral rules of veracity,

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.

St George, (2007) suggests that although health professionals are self regulating, we as a New Zealand society require accountability in regards to good medical practice. In regards to the Supreme Court of New Zealand in the disciplinary