Guest post by Jon Tilburt and Baruch Brody
Editor’s note: this post introduces a recent paper by the authors now in press at the Journal of Medical Ethics: “Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting“
Gaps between our ideals and our behavior are common. Sometimes what we say we believe and what we actually practice differ because we fail to live up to what we actually believe. Doctors who are disingenuous, selfish, corrupt, or duplicitous in their actions must own their failures to live up to their said ideals. Other times we use oversimplified language to describe a said ideal because the wording feels right even when that language is not strictly speaking accurate and never has been completely true in lived reality.
According to a traditional ethic of medicine, part of what makes medicine a profession is that doctors sign up for a greater level of service and self-effacing care to some people, namely our patients. Taking care of my patients is my particular job. If I consider someone my patient, that means something about what I owe them in terms of time, attention, and care. I will stay late for my patient; I don’t have special obligations to all of the patients who show up at my institution or who live in my community; I have special obligations to my patients.
But the structure of medical practice is changing. In the US, Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Medical Homes are asking healthcare organizations and their groups of providers to manage populations of patients, and pilots are underway to test the feasibility of paying for group care with so called “bundled payment” for all the care a population needs.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.