Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Guest Editorial

Uncharted territory: Hippocratic ethics and health systems

Nuala Kenny
CMAJ May 09, 2006 174 (10) 1385; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060447
Nuala Kenny
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision on the Chaoulli case, the CMA will be advising on the relationship between the public and private sectors in the delivery and funding of health care. It is crucial that Canadian doctors recognize that this issue is deeply rooted in some unresolved issues of physician ethics.

Doctors make their living from suffering, pain, fear and hope. Precisely because of this, the public profession of physicians' commitment to the welfare of the patient has been a cardinal feature of the Hippocratic tradition.1 This commitment had been described as self-effacing; it is now understood to be altruistic. The ethic developed when payment was direct: there was no system of diagnostic and therapeutic services and no teams of care providers. By the 1800s the notion of the profession was conceived, with its core elements of competence, commitment to the patient's welfare, and medicine as a public trust. If medicine is to remain a profession and not a business, all three elements of professionalism must be included in the deliberations of the CMA.

The practice of medicine has changed significantly from its Hippocratic roots. The requirement of competence endures. However, the doctor–patient relationship has changed, with more knowledgeable and demanding patients and the formal requirements of informed consent and respect for patient autonomy. The patient's welfare is often complex and contested because medicine almost always has something else that could be done. The obligation of physicians to recommend interventions based on evidence of benefit and harm is challenged by patients who have the expectations of a consumer. When more diagnostics and intervention, whether indicated or not, make the health care “consumer” happy and benefit the physician personally, the fiduciary challenge becomes very real. The organization and delivery of care is now in complex systems provided by multiprofessional teams. Funding has moved to a variety of public and private insurance schemes characterized by shared risk, fixed resources and insulation of both doctors and patients from costs.

The first code in the CMA Code of Ethics confirms the fundamental commitment: “Consider first the well-being of the patient.” However, the physician is no longer the provider of all the resources needed. So, the Code also recognizes “… the responsibility of physicians to promote equitable access to health care resources” (no. 43) and to “Use health care resources prudently” (no. 44). Doctors are frustrated and at times experience a kind of moral anguish when they feel compromised in their duty to individual patients because of system limits and inefficiencies. There is no robust body of ethical reflection that assists doctors in balancing these new and conflicting obligations. So, our profession needs to do some serious work on the meaning of “equitable access to health care resources” and “the prudent use of resources” before it can give credible advice regarding the relationship between the public and private sectors of health care.

The profession needs first to be honest about the conflicts of interest inherent in recommendations regarding the funding and delivery of health care. Doctors' interests can conflict with patients' interests; personal remuneration can conflict with the duty to provide effective, prudent care, and the needs of one patient can threaten the care of others. The interests of some practitioners could be advanced by a private, parallel tier, but those of others, such as practitioners in geriatrics, palliative care and family medicine, especially in rural and remote areas, could be severely compromised.

Accepting medicine as a public trust requires a careful consideration of how changes to systems affect both access to and quality of care. The profession must base its support for changes on a commitment to best evidence — a fundamental ethical obligation of medicine. That evidence indicates that wait times in the public sector increase as a consequence of private parallel systems.2,3 How ought that evidence be taken into account? What evidence is there, from other countries that have increased private funding of care, for the consequences of this change on physician resources for the public system?

Should the profession recommit to the Hippocratic ideal of undivided loyalty to individual patients, or reconceive its role as one of balancing commitments to the well-being of patients with just stewardship of health care resources? These questions must be addressed by Canadian doctors before any meaningful advice can be given to others. Will the business of modern medicine prevail over the moral core? A fundamental question of physician ethics indeed.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer-reviewed.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Jonsen AR. A short history of medical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.
  2. 2.↵
    Barer M. Experts and evidence: new challenges in knowledge translation. In: Flood C, Roach K, Sossin L, editors. Access to care access to justice: the legal debate over private health insurance in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2005. p. 216-9.
  3. 3.↵
    Tuohy C. How does private finance affect public health care systems? Marshalling the evidence from OECD nations, 2004. J Health Polit Policy Law 2004;3:359-96.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 174 (10)
CMAJ
Vol. 174, Issue 10
9 May 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Uncharted territory: Hippocratic ethics and health systems
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Uncharted territory: Hippocratic ethics and health systems
Nuala Kenny
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (10) 1385; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060447

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Uncharted territory: Hippocratic ethics and health systems
Nuala Kenny
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (10) 1385; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060447
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Protecting vaccine programs and the public
  • Managing physician shortages: We are not doing enough
  • Mentally ill youth: meeting service needs
Show more Guest Editorial

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Health care coverage
    • Medical ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire