Does Obamacare spell the end of Hippocratic medicine?

Strangely absent from today’s health care debate is a discussion of the patient/physician relationship. This is remarkable. We may soon witness the end of Hippocratic medicine in America.

As I neared the end of my medical training in the late 1990s, the words of Peter Singer, Princeton University’s Chair of Bioethics, haunted me. In his book, “Rethinking Life and Death,” Singer stated:

“There remains, however, the problem of the lack of any clear boundary between the newborn infant, who is clearly not a person in the ethically relevant sense, and the young child, who is. In our book, ‘Should the Baby Live?,’ my colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggested that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before the infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others. This is clearly before the infant could have a sense of its own existence over time, and would allow a couple to decide that it is better not to continue with a life that has begun very badly.”

With three sentences, Singer turned medical ethics upside down. He suggested America adopt infanticide to control the skyrocketing cost of health care. By withholding care from children with disabilities (killing them is cheaper than treating them), Singer sacrificed the well-being of the individual patient for the “public good.”

To understand how a leading bioethicist reached this horrific conclusion, I scoured the pages of history. Patterns emerged revealing the unseen hinge upon which today’s health care debate turns.

For 2,500 years physicians have followed one of two possible paths: On one side, physicians make decisions to advance the good of society; their primary job is to protect the welfare of the State. On the other side, physicians devote themselves to the wellbeing of the individual citizen.

In his Republic, Plato outlined the first position:

“Bodies which disease had penetrated through and through [the physician] would not have attempted to cure … he did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or to have weak fathers begetting weaker sons; if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way [the physician] had no business to cure him; for such a cure would have been of no use either to himself, or to the State.”

Hippocrates countered with revolutionary perspective. He placed the patient at the center of medicine. With one timeless axiom he guided Hippocratic physicians for the next 2,000 years: “Primum non nocere — First, do no harm.” When doctors enter the medical field they take an oath named after him.

Medicine remains one of society’s most trusted professions. The almost sacred relationship between patients and their physicians has marked the cornerstone of Hippocratic medicine. Patients want to see a physician they trust. Patients want to know their physician is looking out for their well-being — not the financial interests of the State.

Government compassion sounds so noble. But under the weight of the exploding American debt, Washington will inevitably pressure physicians to constrain health care spending by limiting care. Even now, Congress intends to cut Medicare by $400 billion. Drafted legislation penalizes physicians financially if they find themselves in the top 10 percent of health care spending.

Every American should have access to quality health care. But as government gains control over health care dollars, physicians increasingly become employees of the State. In the end, their loyalties conflict and patient care suffers.

We can control the cost of health care without strengthening the powerful grip of Washington. Physicians for Reform offers such a patient-centered plan.

So the question remains: Who will we follow? Plato or Hippocrates?

Dr. C. L. Gray is president of Physicians for Reform (www.PhysiciansForReform.org).

health careOp EdsOpinionUS

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Jill Bonny, owner of Studio Kazoku tattoo parlor in the Haight, tattoos client Lam Vo on Friday, March 5, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
No one was fighting for tattoo artists, so they started advocating for themselves

Jill Bonny has been tattooing in the Bay Area since 2000. Four… Continue reading

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted changes to The City's streets including Slow Streets closures to increase open space access and the Shared Spaces program, which allows businesses to use public right-of-ways for dining, retail and services. (Examiner illustration)
COVID is reshaping the streets of San Francisco

Walk down Page Street, which is closed to thru-traffic, and you might… Continue reading

At a rally in February, Monthanus Ratanapakdee, left, and Eric Lawson remember Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year-old Thai man who died after he was pushed to the pavement in San Francisco. (Ekevara Kitpowsong/Examiner file photo)
The criminal justice system can’t fix what’s wrong in our community

My 87-year-old mother walks gingerly, slowly, deliberately, one step in front of… Continue reading

Superintendent Vincent Matthews said some students and families who want to return will not be able to do so at this time. “We truly wish we could reopen schools for everyone,” he said. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
SFUSD sets April reopening date after reaching tentative agreement with teachers union

San Francisco Unified School District has set April 12 as its reopening… Continue reading

José Victor Luna and Maria Anabella Ochoa, who cite health reasons for continuing distance learning, say they have been enjoying walking in Golden Gate Park with their daughters Jazmin, a first grader, and Jessica, a third grader. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Some SFUSD families prefer distance learning

Health issues, classroom uncertainties among reasons for staying home

Most Read