Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to J F Peppin.
Physician value neutrality is the widely-held belief that physicians must not impose their personal values on their patients. The authors argue that this concept is flawed and thus is neither possible nor should it be pursued.
Managed care poses a challenge to the traditional conceptualization of medicine and of the physician-patient relationship. People have evaluated the merits of managed care by focusing upon the way its incentives alter the relationship between physician and patient. However, this misses the key to rightly evaluating MCOs. To address the ethics of MCOs one should focus on the institution-patient relationship, and this has not been sufficiently addressed in the literature. I will address this relationship here and show how the institution-patient relationship has evolved, why it has become increasingly prominent, and why we must move beyond business ethics for rightly understanding it.
Physician conflict of interest has been of concern since Hippocrates and rarely is this concern more evident than in the relationship between pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSR) and physicians. Given the acrimonious public debates concerning this issue a careful exploration of the concerns at sake and the conceptual arguments which support such concerns is called for. In this piece I will take as heuristic the conceptual philosophical framework argued for by H. Tristram Engelhardt. This framework would sanction interactions between PSRs and physicians given that such relationships are free and without coercion. Further, patients must be informed, uncoerced and free in choosing such relationships with physicians who engage in interactions with PSRs. I consider four major criticisms which claim that PSR-physician interactions are morally impermissible: 1) influence, 2) "patients do not choose, but they pay," 3) violation of ethical principles, and 4) erosion of the patient-physician relationship. Each is shown to be unpersuasive under Engelhardtian philosophy. As long as the principle of permission and informed consent obtain without coercion than the interaction between PSRs and physicians would be construed to be morally permissible.
Since their appearance in 1850, Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSR) interactions with physicians have engendered intense emotional responses. The controversy has continued unabated since that time. Arguments in favor of the moral impermissibility of the PSR-physician relationship can be divided into four general categories; (1) influence, (2) patients pay but they do not choose, (3) violation of principlism, and (4) the erosion of the patient-physician relationship. None of the arguments that have thus far been proposed against the moral permissibility of these interactions gives sufficient warrant to avoid them (or pursue them). It may be the case that PSR-physician interactions place the patient-physician relationship in jeopardy. This would constitute enough warrant, from a pragmatic perspective, to shun such relationships. However, no research supports this contention. A careful evaluation of the literature leaves one ambivalent at best.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Since osteopathic medicine's inception its distinction has been proclaimed steadfastly in the osteopathic literature. The uniqueness has been claimed to reside in: (1) rigid adherence to A.T. Still's tenets; (2) osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT); (3) claims of "holism"; (4) "osteopathic principles", (5) esoteric definitions; and (6) other suggested differences. None of these claims can be successfully defended. An aspect of the osteopathic distinction may lie in the didactic of OMT per se. Certain experiences in medical school contribute to the "reconstruction" of the student's view of the patient. Touch, through OMT, may be a quality that affects this change and helps make the osteopathic physician different. When blended with traditional medical modalities this may result in a unique medical perspective. The ideal approach for the osteopathic profession would be an honest evaluation of its function in society and its uniqueness in medicine. The profession may discover a uniqueness with touch as an integral part.