The ethics of the medical progressives

 Hubris is the belief that one is intellectually superior to his fellow human being.That can be manifest as just an air of superiority , sort of a know-it-all  who might offer gratuitous advice.Such folks tend to be irritating but not necessarily dangerous.. Add that mind set to a belief that folks of that statue should be in charge of well most everything and you have the two basic principles of the progressive mind set and then things can get to be dangerous.Add to that mindset the notion that if folks do not accept your blindingly brilliant plans there should be some mechanism of enforcement of your wisdom.


Cui Bono. Follow the money or who profits. Ask the question who profits form  what appears to be a sea change in medical ethics in the last decade? What is the sea change? The change is from a basic fiduciary duty of the physician to the patient to the physician now ethically tasked with both doing what is best for the patient and  somehow conserving "society's medical resources". One master less chance of conflict- two masters conflict lurking much of the time and loss of trust.

The new medical ethics is the ethics of the progressive.  I call the medical progressive the medical progressive elite. In Joe Kotkin's taxonomy found in his book America's New Class System they would be a subset of the clerisy who function to provide cover for the oligarchs and for the ever growing and increasingly powerful governmental bureaucracy.

The progressive ethic is that much of society's affairs ( meaning an individual's affairs) should be managed by an elite.Medical decisions that in the past have been the bailiwick or purvey of the patient in consultation with his physician will in the world of the new medical ethics become decisions that will be made by wise leaders with ideas who pass their wisdom down in the form of guidelines adherence to which is now an ethical imperative. Here we have the merging of the high sounding ideals with the narrow self interests of the third payer payers.Does this not resonant with the notion of the Baptist and the Bootlegger?

Dr. Paul Hsieh discuses certain aspects of the new medical ethics here on PJMedia Blog.

Interestingly this 2012 article by Mark Daniels which reviews certain historical development in medical ethics and discusses various categorical approach to ethics in general ( duty based versus utilitarian etc) makes no mention of a duty of the physician to be a steward of society's medical resources.

The new ethics has been promulgated and promoted by the American Board of Internal Medicine and its foundation and fellow travelers in the American College of Physicians a number of whom have held positions in both organizations. This new duty is manufactured out of whole cloth largely by these two organizations.Their  Choosing Wisely campaign and the Medical Processional for the New Millennium publication have served as vehicles to bamboozle both the medical profession and the public.

Who profits? the third party payers and a number of the progressive medical elite who have positioned themselves to be the movers and shakers in the governmental and quasi governmental
structure that aims to control the practice of medicine and importantly attempt to control (i.e. minimize) the expenditures of the private and public third party payers.