Advertisement

The Physician And Technological Change

  • Robert M. Cook-Deegan
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 29)

Abstract

Physicians derive their authority from at least two sources. Their moral authority is based on the obligation to place patient benefit above self-interest, which is reflected in professional codes of ethics. Technical authority arises from the physician’s superior knowledge about the course of disease and means to prevent, reverse, or arrest it. In the physician-patient relationship, the basis for moral authority is a patient’s trust of the physician. In health policy, moral authority hinges on public trust of physicians’ aggregate motivations (i.e., are physicians interested in service or money?). These bases for moral authority have until recently been widely presumed to be healthy and stable.

Keywords

Technological Change England Journal Medical Technology Patient Benefit Sickle Cell Trait 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. 1.
    Blume, S. S.: 1985, ‘The Significance of Technological Change in Medicine: An Introduction’, Research Policy 14 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braunwald, E.: 1977, ‘Coronary-Artery Surgery at the Crossroads’, New England Journal of Medicine 297, 661–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chassin, M. R., Brook, R. H., Park, R. E., etc. et al.: 1986, ‘Variations in the Use of Medical and Surgical Services by the Medicare Population’, New England Journal of Medicine 314, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Committee for Evaluating Medical Technologies in Clinical Use, Institute of Medicine: 1985, Assessing Medical Technologies, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daniels, N.: 1985, Just Health Care, Cambridge University Press, New York. See especially Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., in collaboration with King, N. M. P.: 1986, A History and Theory of Informed Consent, Oxford University Press, New York. See especially Chapters 3 and 4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fletcher, J. C.: 1983, ‘Moral Problems and Ethical Issues in Prospective Human Gene Therapy’, Virginia Law Review 69, 515–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedman, E.: 1986, ‘Practice Variations: Where Will the Push to Fall in Line End?’ Medical World News (January 27), pp. 51–69.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fries, J.: 1980, ‘Aging, Natural Death, and the Compression of Morbidity’, New England Journal of Medicine 303, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haug, M. R., and Lavin, B.: 1981, ‘Practitioner or Patient — Who’s in Charge?’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22, 212–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hiatt, H.: 1977, ‘Lessons from the Coronary Bypass Debate’, New England Journal of Medicine 297, 1462–1464. See also the adjacent correspondence section, pp. 1464–1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Himmelstein, D. U., and Woolhandler, S.: 1986, ‘Cost without Benefit: Administrative Waste in U.S. Health Care’, New England Journal of Medicine 314, 441–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horrobin, D. F.: 1978 Medical Hubris, Eden Press, Montreal, and Lunesdale House, Hornby, Lancaster, England.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonsen, A.: 1983, ‘Watching the Doctor’, New England Journal of Medicine 308, 1531–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katz, J.: 1984, The Silent World of Doctor and Patient, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Light, D. W.: 1983, ‘Is Competition Bad?’ New England Journal of Medicine 309, 1315–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lowrance, W. W.: 1985, Modern Science and Human Values, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mullan, F., and Jacoby I.: 1985, ‘The Town Meeting for Technology’, Journal of the American Medical Association 254, 1968–1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nozick, R.: 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell’s Oxford. See especially Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress: September 1982, Strategies for Medical Technology Assessment, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress: December 1984, Human Gene Therapy, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress: June 1985, Technology and Aging in America, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Office of Technology Assessment, U. S. Congress: October 1985, Medicare’s Prospective Payment System, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perry, S.: 1986, ‘Technology Assessment: Continuing Uncertainty’, New England Journal of Medicine 314, 240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: June 1982, Compensating for Research Injuries, Govern ment Printing Office, Washington, DC. See especially Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. See especially Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reilly, P.: 1977, Genetics, Law and Public Policy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. See especially Chapter 2.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Relman, A. S.: 1985, ‘Cost Control, Doctor’s Ethics, and Patient Care’, Issues in Science and Technology 1,Winter, 103–111.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Relman, A. S.: 1985, ‘Dealing With Conflicts of Interest’, New England Journal of Medicine 313, 749–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schneider, E., and Brody, J.: 1983, ‘Aging, Natural Death, and the Compression of Morbidity: Another View’, New England Journal of Medicine 309, 854–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Starr, P.: 1982, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Basic Books, Inc., New York. See especially Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steinwachs, D. M., Weiner, J. P., Shapiro, S. et al.: 1986, ‘A Comparison of the Requirements for Primary Care Physicians in HMOs with Projections Made by the GMENAC, New England Journal of Medicine 314, 217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wennberg, J.: 1986, ‘Which Rate is Right?’ New England Journal of Medicine 314, 310–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Other References Consulted

  1. Heilbroner, R. L.: 1985, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, Norton Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ziman, J.: 1978, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Cook-Deegan
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Technology Assessment U. S. CongressGeorgetown UniversityWashington, DC

Personalised recommendations