Pity Bias

Rocky_Balboa_-_The_Best_of_Rocky_CD_coverWe love underdogs.  Rocky made Sylvester Stallone millions with one great storyline: little guy beats giant.

We hate fat cats.  Our favourite villains have always been rich and powerful.

Regardless of fact, some stories of oppression sound truthier than others.  We want to believe them just in case they’re true. Pity bias moves us.

At the same time, stories of the rich and famous ruining their lives remain popular news.  We love hearing about it.  Part of us enjoys their pain, schadenfreude perhaps.  While we naturally feel pity for underdogs, we just as easily feel no compassion for rich people in rehab.

Public Perception

Except for when doctors get kidnapped in Pakistan, physicians do not engender pity.  Sick patients want to believe in perfect providers.  Historically, physicians played this role as expected of them.

Despite modern redefinitions of le bon docteur, physicians are still labelled the ‘most responsible’ provider.  Lawyers go after doctors, not healthcare teams.

What’s more, physicians work hard.  Driven, from grade school though decades of training, if they survive, doctors’ work ethic turns into above average incomes.

Too Powerful

Stories of physician hegemony always resonate with the public and all levels of system leadership.  Regardless of fact, people believe physicians run healthcare with bureaucrats trying in vain to manage them.  Other providers guarantee a sympathetic audience by telling stories about oppressive doctors.

In large hospitals, departments can have 200 nurses, with dozens of clerks and support staff backed by big, rich unions.  Often 4-6 full time, non-physician managers get hired to lead.  The same department typically hires 1 part-time physician to help with system decisions.  Big, progressive hospitals might devote 40 hours of support divided between a couple physician leaders for large departments, but it’s rare.

Despite being out-numbered by more than 5:1 in funded leadership hours, the ‘doctors have too much power‘ complaint always gains a sympathetic hearing.

Rhetoric of Oppression

Appeal to oppression moves audiences. We love underdogs. It biases decisions before discussion begins.

We need facts.  Transparency.  In a public system, taxpayers should know who holds the reins.  We should post lists of all leadership positions in Medicare including training/degrees held.  Compared with bureaucrats and other providers, only a sprinkling of the 25,000 practicing physicians in Ontario holds leadership spots.  Medicare needs more physicians in leadership; a stronger voice, not less influence.  Doctors bring unique value others cannot deliver.

Compassion, Not Pity or Bias

Physicians do not need or deserve pity.  Most don’t want it.

At the same time, we need to be alert to the pity reflex no matter who’s telling the story.  Of course we need compassion for all complaints regardless of who raises them.  But pity should not bias operations.

Let’s be careful that our love of underdogs doesn’t bias decisions about patient care.

 

Physicians’ Rules vs. Patient Freedom

cma_lgThe Canadian Medical Association ended its Annual General Meeting in Ottawa today.  After pages of motions, speeches and procedure, I noticed:

Doctors like rules.

They want rules, guidelines and policy to drive change.

  • Is that because physicians are paternalistic and think everyone else too stupid to decide without a rule to follow?
  • Is it because Canadians prefer rules and doctors just follow culture?
  • Perhaps governments listen when citizens ask for rules and guidelines?

Controlling Innovation

New ideas grow in clear soil.  Disruptive innovation breaks rules and paradigms.  Guideline-makers scramble to keep up with new ideas forcing them into new guidelines.  Guidelines support enforced conformity.  Innovation, by definition, grows outside rigid controls or breaks rules to generate new things.

Innovation resists control.  Progress requires freedom.

Loving control

CMA delegates spent 3 days asking for controls and rules on everything from smoking pot to smoking wood stoves.  Delegate motions add up to a long list of things doctors oppose or want controlled.  Very few motions called for freedom.

Physicians supported freedom in affirming doctors’ right to not perform euthanasia if it became legal.  Delegates support doctors’ freedom.

A great society

What will give us the best country possible?  Do we get the best society by crafting dozens of rules about things we oppose and legislating things we approve?  Do we get the best society by continually shaping towards a vision, a utopian dream?

What other countries have tried pursuing dreams of perfection?  Do citizens have better lives in countries with more control, more rules?

Good Intentions

Physicians entered medicine to help patients.  Doctors spend their lives telling patients what they believe will benefit patients.

Governments politicate to help citizens.  Governments make rules they think will benefit citizens.

But patients can ignore doctors’ advice for healthy living.  Citizens cannot ignore the government’s rules. What seems moral and right to advise at the bedside is totalitarian if imposed by the state.

Forcing Good Health?

Canadian physicians petitioning government for rules (often) unwittingly promote a specific political philosophy.  The Canadian Medical Association must consider the politics it unintentionally promotes by seeking legislation for good intentions.

Physicians uphold patient autonomy far above the best medical science.  Doctors might consider whether their love of rules and legislation is an affront to patient freedom and autonomy.  Are we promoting:

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory?

 

Informed public policy?

Health Minister Rona AmbroseRona Ambrose, then federal Minister of Health Canada, spoke to several hundred doctors at CMA annual meeting in August 2014.

Facts must guide public policy.  We know medicine is an art and a science, but we need science to guide public policy.” (not exact quote)

What did she mean? Why say it?

  • Only facts matter?
  • Docs are all logical positivists?
  • Science matters more than any other source of knowledge?

Indeed, physicians tend to elevate scientific validity far above information from any other “-ology”; psychology, sociology, history, law, economics… Putting science above and before all else is scientism.  Scientism sees medicine as a technologic endeavour.  Medicine becomes nothing but a technological product.

Bureaucrats know how to control technological products.

“Where ends are agreed, the only questions left are those of means, and these are not political but technical, that is to say, capable of being settled by experts or machines, like arguments between engineers or doctors. That is why those who put their faith in some immense, world-transforming phenomenon, like the final triumph of reason or the proletarian revolution, must believe that all political and moral problems can thereby be turned into technological ones.  That is the meaning of Engels’ famous phrase…about replacing the government of persons by the administration of things”

– I Berlin 1958 in “Two Concepts of Liberty

The doctor-patient relationship defines medicine; a relationship struck to help patients in need.  Medicine needs to articulate what medicine is.  Saying medicine is nothing but a science applied with artistic care will not do.  Medicine is much more.

Informed Public Policy

If physicians define medicine as nothing but a technological product then bureaucrats will give us an administration of things.  We need to give federal ministers reasons to look for something more to guide public policy.