We Stand FIRM
FIRM Home
Blog Home
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
Twitter: WeStandFIRM

Contributors
Lin Zinser
Ari Armstrong
Diana Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
E-mail all the bloggers

Blogroll
Principles in Practice
Capitalism Magazine
Patient Power
Medpolitics
Concierge Medicine MD
ReasonPharm
Health Care BS
Free Market Cure
KevinMD
John Goodman
Junkfood Science
Covert Rationing
NCPA Digest
Socialized Medicine
State House Call
Big Gov Health
WSJ Health Blog
Medical Progress Today
Derek Lowe
AFCM
Free Colorado
WASH
Heal Spiel
Health Policy Action Center
Lucidicus Project

Articles/Essays:

"Health Care Is Not A Right"
"FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance"
More Articles/Editorials

FIRM Debates Universal Healthcare on Opposing Views


Archives
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
 Tuesday, September 2, 2008
UK Doctors Withholding Treatment Information From Patients
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:05 AM PermaLink

The August 26, 2008 Telegraph reports yet another example of the corrosive effect that nationalized health care has on the doctor-patient relationship.

The paper reports that many British oncologists (cancer specialists) deliberately don't tell their patients about all the possible treatment options, because some of those options would not be permitted under the government system, even though they may be available in other countries. Most of the time, these treatments are unavailable in England because of the expense.

Some of the British oncologists rationalized their policy on the grounds that, "there was 'no point' in discussing treatments their patients could not have" and that such a discussion might "distress, upset or confuse" their patients. But whether these doctors intend it or not, they've stopped being advocates for their patients and instead become agents of the government.

If a patient is willing to spend his savings for a medication that might help him live longer, he should have that right. Patients rely on their physicians for information about the full range of alternatives (including an honest appraisal of the various risks, costs, and benefits) so that they can make fully informed decisions about their lives. For a doctor to fail to provide that information would be a massive breach of his or her ethical responsibility to the patient.

But this is the predictable result when the government pays the doctors' salaries, rather than the patients. The physicians are then beholden to their employers and start working in the best financial interests of the government, not the patient.

And what makes the system especially evil is not the fact that it allows a few doctors to act badly, but rather that it takes good doctors and turns them into bad physicians willing to betray their patients.

American advocates of "universal health care" should ask themselves if this is what they really want...

(Via Medical Progress Today.)

Labels: ,

E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD / PermaLink / Comments / Trackbacks / BlogThis