Medical Independence
The relationship we have with our physicians is one of the most personal relationships anyone can have. It takes trust and understanding from both parties. Sometimes it’s hard to face difficult medical decisions and patients need to know their physicians are using sound medical training and experience to treat them in a manner that is safe and ethical. All physicians take a Hippocratic oath which, among other things, endows them with the responsibility to conduct the art of medicine with purity and condemn any conduct that would be considered dishonest or improper by other medical practitioners. There is no place in this oath for Government.
In general, it is the role of government to secure and preserve the safety and prosperity of The People. As it relates to medicine, the government’s only obligation is to ensure patient safety through setting standards for licensure, inspection, and certification of medical facilities, the prosecution of malpractice, and revocation of privileges to practice medicine. Before 1965 it has never been an obligation of the government to provide payment for medical services nor provide operating capital to medical facilities to continue operating as a business.
In our modern times, the dependence of our health care system on government funding has completely blurred the lines of medical ethics. Trust in a hospital or physician is compromised when their operating capital and salaries are funded by the government or companies that produce pharmaceuticals or medical devices. This fact is not lost on anyone because there are strict laws in place which regulate the conduct between medical supply companies and medical providers. What about the relationships between the government and medical providers? Aren’t the same ethical boundaries called into question? I believe they are.
It is my firm belief there is no place for government in the physician-patient relationship. Government representatives, be they elected, appointed, or employed, have no place in between the physician and the patient especially if they are paying the bill. The only exception to this would be if some fiduciary obligation exists, on the part of the state, to advocate for a patient incapable of making their own medical choices and if such a relationship exists the obligation of both physician and the state is to the patient. A very serious issue arises when a government has control of both the funding of a medical facility and the treatment options made available to patients.
The complexities of the modern medical industry are becoming more difficult to navigate but I believe one thing is very obvious. The control of medical treatments is a sacred one that should be held by the patient. This control should never be held by a financier or a government. The choice of treatment options should be prescribed by physicians, not by a government bureaucrat. It has taken years for us to get into the position we are in now and it may take years to correct. If we appoint honorable electors, if The People show resolve, and our physicians exercise their oath I believe we can get back to the place where medicine is once again free from undue influence.