]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] ALLEGIANCE [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
From the newsletter of (10/30/1989)
Thomas A. Dorman
(Freeman 93401DORM)
The honor and progress of medicine stemmed from the
Hippocratic ethic, which requires physicians to be accountable
exclusively to their patients. The latter then upheld it voluntarily
with their fees and gifts. Today, feigning to protect the public from
corrupt or inept practitioners, political controls are superseding the
Hippocratic ethic and private safeguards. Medical licensure is the
model of such political RprotectionS.
Imposed by law, political controls void the Hippocratic
covenant, by making patient-centered ethics impossible. Grievously
ordinary today, this condition was first advanced by Plato almost 2400
years ago in The Republic (c.387-370 B.C.). As posed by him, the
physician's allegiance is to himself and the other holders of power,
not to the patient: RThe business of the physician, in the strict
sense, is not to make a profit but to exercise his power over the
patient's bodyS. This makes the physician infallible (Rright' means
the interest of the stronger party and... the ruler in so far as he is
a ruler, makes no mistakeS) and entitles him to make vital decisions
for the patient.
Plato leaves no doubt about the scope of this power: This
then is the kind of medical and judicial provision for which you will
legislate in your state. It will provide treatment for those of your
citizens whose physical and psychological constitution is good; as for
the others, it will leave the unhealthy to die, and those whose
psychological constitution is incurably corrupt it will put to death.
Thus, the Platonic ethic necessarily dissolves the Hippocratic
tradition. Thomas Szasz discussed several aspects of this process (The
Theology of Medicine 1977). He notes ... "We witness here a collision
between the Platonic and Hippocratic medical ethics Q the former
easily triumphing over the latter....By making the physician the
definer not only of his own but also of his patient's best interests,
Plato actually supports a coercive-collectivistic medical ethic rather
than an autonomous-individualistic one...clearly, the Platonic
physician is an agent of the state Q and if need be, the adversary of
his patient."
Licensure is the physician's Platonic covenant. It makes him
answerable to the government, and ultimately its officers. It compels
him to preside over the enslavement of his patients by the state, as
soon as the latter so decides. Since medical care of people proceeds
according to the demands of the masters, while the patients have
virtually no say, its ethics now equal those of veterinary medicine.
Licensure and Freedom
The broader picture of licensure consists of a politically
generated arrangement by which certain classes of non-poor often
called RprofessionsS are subsidized directly by the public. The
standards for licensure are always among the most technical and
elaborate. Professional training becomes long, difficult and
expensive. The number of schools and graduates drops, leading to a
sharp rise in the professionals' fees and income. But licensure limits
competition and mobility and causes errors in the allocation of
professional services. Since it promotes norms and daunts change,
licensure also must have a negative effect on quality.
Eventually the early edge a group gains by licensure ebbs
away, as other groups succeed in securing similar privileges. But all
the drawbacks remain, and the government starts to use licensure for
its own purposes.
It is plain that if patients want freedom of choice and lower
medical prices, they will have to accept the personal responsibility
required by the market order. This cannot occur unless physicians also
accept the discipline of the market.
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Dr.
Benjamin Rush, clearly discerned the bent for ill of government
medicine Q as well as its link to licensure Q when he wrote: "Unless
we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when
medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship...To restrict
the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to
others will constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws
are un-American and despotic... and have no place in a Republic....
The Constitution of this Republic should make special provision for
medical freedom as well as religious freedom."
This article is an excerpt from one by George Yossif, M.D.,
Ph.D. printed in AAPS news, one of the few organizations your doctor
could find which is in favor of free medicine.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page