Physicians Limit Freedom?

Judge Shaking Finger

A group of doctors discussed gambling.

“You’d never believe the pain some of my patients experience with problem gambling,” one said.

“We should lobby government to stop using revenues from gambling!” said another.

Some listeners nodded.

“Don’t we finance hospitals with lotteries?”

Silence.

“Should physicians dictate morality?” someone asked.

Doctors Limit Freedom?

Regardless of the morality of gambling and casinos, should physicians advocate for laws that limit patient freedom?  What is the role of freedom in health and human flourishing?

A physician leader frowned at my defence of patient freedom.

“When do we stop making laws and start supporting individual freedom?” I asked.

“Don’t you agree with seat belts?” he asked.  “How about stop signs?”

“Of course I agree with seat belts and stop signs,” I said.

“Well, then you agree with government limiting free choice!”

Now there’s the rub:  how much freedom do we give up to live together in a ‘free’ society?

People who conflate stop signs with prohibition confuse mutual limits on individual freedom with imposing personal preference on others.

It’s one thing for us to obey stop signs for the safety of all.  It’s something else entirely for  intelligentsia to impose restrictions on other people’s behaviour that have little to do with their own freedom.

What do you think?  Where do we draw the line between promoting healthy ideas and limiting individual freedom?  Who should decide?  Do we need more health related laws or do we have too many already?

Want To Hear From A Governance Expert? Pearls

Governance PearlsGlen Tecker, a governance consultant, spoke recently.  Here’s what stood out:

People want to understand why leadership acts:

What is perceived, is.

Perceptions rest on available information, accurate or not.

In the absence of information, we assume.

Behaviour, no matter how crazy, has a logical basis.

People have little idea about what they need, but strong opinions about what they want.  So ask: find out what people want.  Communicate how you used those wants to add value and inform decisions. Focus on outcome; describe success.  Often, people only find out what they believe is important by being asked.

People engage when things:

Matter to them

Make a difference for them

Are enjoyable for them.

You need all 3 to function:

  1.                 Authority
  2.                 Process
  3.                 Capacity

Without these, you will be dysfunctional.

Re: Big vs. Small organizational groups:

  1. Big Groups serve representative, political functions:  they govern a whole profession.
  2. Small Groups serve corporate deliverables: they govern an organization as an enterprise.

Big groups discuss and produce information that small groups use to decide.

Culture of trust needs:

  1. Clarity and consciousness about what will equal success.
  2. Open access to common information.
  3. Confidence in the competence of your partners.

‘Voice’ differs from ‘vote’.  The majority must know the concerns and objections of the minority voice.  All views need a voice but not always a vote.

Medicine Beyond Technical Wonder: Intentionality

DSC_0469[Note: this post tackles a complex corner of medicine.  I left out bold and italics skimming tools since I couldn’t figure out a way to summarize it more than it is.  Cheers.]

Some say ‘medicine has lost its way’ and become a technical discipline focused on fixing broken physiology. The doctor-patient relationship requires human compassion and care in so far as they further a physician’s ability to perform real clinical work: diagnosis and treatment.

Intentionality fills nearly every aspect of the doctor-patient relationship. Intentionality, the collection of abilities by which our minds form concepts about other things, includes our capacity to comprehend, understand, believe, hope, and perceive. These operate toward something else: patients understand treatment; physicians believe what their patient tells them. Understanding and believing are always directed toward something; they never stand by themselves. We understand something; we believe something.

Intentionality forms a core element of the doctor-patient relationship which itself is the heart of clinical care. Intentionality cannot be reduced to physiology or material explanation. It belongs to a different category than matter and energy. Still, intentionality plays a critical and ubiquitous role in medical care.

Medical science impresses with technological success won by reducing everything to physiology (matter and energy). Over the last 100 years, the powerful tools of reductionism and materialism have come to enjoy an elevated cognitive status. Things that exist materially and can be explained with a reductionist heuristic exist more certainly than those that cannot.

With the growth of medical science and material explanation, physicians have become experts at diagnosing and fixing disordered physiology. Expertise and success foster increased trust in the reductionist, mechanistic heuristic such that it becomes more than a tool. It becomes an all encompassing philosophy of medicine; a meta-narrative of clinical care. Physicians are most certain when managing physiology. In fact, we now define quality by technical expertise and outcomes, and negligence by technical failure. Lack of skill on the human elements of clinical care gets viewed as negligent only in so far as it negatively impacts physiologic outcomes: the important work of medicine.

Medicine (quite possibly society as a whole) has allowed one way of knowing and explaining, one epistemology, to attain a status far above all other ways of knowing. Law, business, psychology, art – all of the humanities – hold maximum sway only in proportion to their ability to explain themselves materialistically.

Medicine needs to build its own heuristic – its own philosophy of clinical care – that encompasses all the data self evident in the doctor patient relationship. Medicine cannot let basic science define what is most true or most important about the doctor patient relationship. Medicine cannot allow only data that fits into materialist explanations to hold an elevated cognitive status without patients feeling a loss of the human elements of clinical care.

We need to retain materialist explanation as a tool in clinical care, but build our own philosophy based on the core of medicine: the doctor-patient relationship. Highlighting intentionality will take us on a first step toward a fuller philosophy of care.