The concept "social justice" was the bait. The folks at ABIM, ABIMF, ACP and RWJ declared without even a token effort at historical justification that part of professionalism for physicians was social justice. That 2002 publication entitled " Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium.A physician charter " did not specify exactly how physicians might work for social justice in their role as physicians.Neither did they offer an operational meaning for social justice which is par for course for folks who promote a collectivist agenda, the ambiguity having significant rhetorical value.Progressive and liberals love the notion of social justice and would readily give their approval to this new and improved medical professionalism. Conservatives and libertarians not so much but even some went alone to get along to avoid accusations of political incorrectness.
Now the switch. Physicians could/should work for social justice by being stewards of society's scarce medical resources and that could be done by following guidelines and in that way a fair and equitable distribution of resources could be brought about.
Never mind that the most widely acceptable definition of social justice is redistribution of resources from those who can afford it to those more disadvantaged. This in not what is being promulgated. The ABIM (F) and ACP and RWJF are advocating for parsimonious care in their Choosing Wisely campaign which to the degree it is successful will decrease care for everyone, at least everyone who depends on their insurance ( private or public) for medical care. Who gains ? The third party payers and the medical progressive elite and fellow travelers who write the guidelines.
Dr, Scott W Atlas writes here about the two tiered health care that Obamacare will intensify, an interesting irony since folks who continue to defend Obamacare insist that one of the success of it is to further social justice. This is a strange social justice in which the poor and middle class may get less care while the connected and wealthy will do much better and in which the young and well subsidize the older and sicker folks even though many of the older are financially better off if only because they may have remnants of lifetimes of earnings.