Do you agree with Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother) that the Hippocratic Oath is inconvenient?
Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving "overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Dr. Emanuel argues that "peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians."
He has lamented that doctors regard the "Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the patient to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others."
Of course, that is what patients hope their doctor will do.
But President Barack Obama is pledging to rein in the nation’s health care spending. The framework for influencing your doctor’s decisions was included in the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The legislation sets a goal that every individual’s treatments will be recorded by computer, and your doctor will be guided by electronically delivered protocols on "appropriate" and "cost-effective" care.
Heading the new system is Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard Medical School professor, named national coordinator of health information technology. His writings show he favors limits on how much health care people can get.
"Government controls are a proven strategy for controlling health care expenditures," he argued in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in March 2001.
Blumenthal conceded there are disadvantages:
"Longer waits for elective procedures and reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices."
Yet he called it "debatable" whether the faster care Americans currently have is worth the higher cost.
Now that Blumenthal is in charge, he sees problems ahead.
"If electronic health records are to save money," he writes, doctors will have to take "advantage of embedded clinical decision support" (a euphemism for computers instructing doctors what to do).
"If requirements are set too high, many physicians and hospitals will rebel — petitioning Congress to change the law or just resigning themselves to . . . accepting penalties," he wrote in NEJM early this month.
To reduce spending, as President Obama promises, doctors will have to be pressured to deny care. Rand reported that Canada allows few cardiac procedures for patients age 65 and older.
In critiquing the Hippocratic Oath, Dr. Emanuel calls for training medical students "to move toward more socially sustainable, cost-effective care." He says the trend "from ‘do everything’ to PALLATIVE CARE shows that change in physician norms is possible."
Dr. Emanuel also cites medical comforts for pushing up costs: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries," he noted in the Journal of the American Medical Association last June.
.
Apparently there is no limit on proverbial Wicked Sons per household.
Cosmo do you understand the implications of this in context of agenda supported for over a century by major Obama backers? This is not about making life better for more people. It is about there being fewer people. We must look behind the sales tactics!
Betelgeuse maybe so but not with these guys.
from one telling article:
"When Rahm was 14, his parents adopted a newborn girl after the baby’s mother showed up at the hospital where Dr. Emanuel worked as head of pediatrics, wanting to give the girl away.
The sister "has not had the sterling success of her brothers" [article-writer's words].
"Zeke says all three….now have an “episodic” relationship with her, and he wonders about the *genesis* of her life’s troubles:
“It’s a good question as to how much is environment, following three such brothers, and how much is *genetic*.
"It’s hard to know.”
The Hippocratic Oath probably is inconvenient to a society that has moved from revering human life to a pragmatism that says, "What good is this sick person to me?"
We see this in the demand for abortion up to the moment of birth and the demand for infanticide for unwanted babies who survive abortion. Barack Obama cut his teeth in politics in Illinois by stonewalling the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which required medical care for babies who survive abortion. That would unnecessarily burden women and medical personnel who wanted the baby dead, said Obama.
In the compassionate society of liberalism, the government will decide who gets medical treatment and who dies. This is the flip side of the story of government providing for the indigent sick, for the government rather than the individual will decide who lives and who dies.
Interesting, when asked if he would let government decide such questions for his own family, Obama said no.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
Translation: We the liberal elite don’t have to suffer with you second-class Americans. We’re powerful and we’re rich.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
17 comments to Do you agree with Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm’s brother) that the Hippocratic Oath is inconvenient?
Leave a Reply
Obama wants to turn our great hospitals into third world clinics with dirt floors and a waiting list
"U.S. payrolls data, due on Thursday, is expected to show that employers cut 355,000 more jobs in June, with the unemployment rate rising to a 26-year high of 9.6 percent from 9.4 percent in May."
References :
Ezekiel Emanuel is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Rahm Emanuel’s brother?
how convenient
What you posted is EXACTLY why I am against the government in my health care.
References :
I’m not the least bit surprised that Ezekiel Emmanuel disdains the Hippocratic oath and would like to trade it in for the Hypocritic Oath instead. It’s no wonder that he and Obama get along so well, they both want to gut the US Medical profession.
References :
Just my opinion
Emanuel did not call for "eliminat[ing] the Hippocratic Oath," but wrote that the culture of health care "overuse" has led physicians to interpret the Hippocratic Oath "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others":
"At least 7 factors drive overuse, 4 related to physicians and 3 related to patients. First, there is the matter of physician culture. Medical school education and postgraduate training emphasize thoroughness. When evaluating a patient, students, interns, and residents are trained to identify and praised for and graded on enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them. The thought is that the more thorough the evaluation, the more intelligent the student or house officer. Trainees who ignore the improbable "zebra" diagnoses are not deemed insightful. In medical training, meticulousness, not effectiveness, is rewarded.
This mentality carries over into practice. Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians. The prudent physician is not deemed particularly competent, but rather inadequate. This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to "use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment" as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905130029
References :
The health insurers need competition, they are gouging us.
Everyone just wants coverage that doesn’t cost half of their pay.
I don’t think that is too much to ask.
There is too much waste and everyone knows this. So why not shake up the industry to make it more affordable? I don’t understand why anyone would be against that.
References :
I think it’s time this country invested in a universal health care. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
References :
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoC3_ZHtP_AIhbtff.LWE4rsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090629211331AAs0T54
This is crazy. Do you realize Rahm (only spelled differently) is the name used for Satan.
Check out the illuminati and how they have lied (perpetrated a fraud) about evolution and global warming.
References :
You must know that they cannot plan holocauste for us like Hitler but they say we are too more on this eard.
They treat us as cattle fe a goy meaning=bad cattle and after 65 years
old we will not be treted with chimio or artificila kenny.
One of them in France has said it on TV his name is ATTALI and he do belong to the hightest masons lodges or ILLUMINATI who now order all and redact bills and laws in France and in the States.
I bust my ace to show you the bound between the 2 countries.
in the past it was the bill of right and the freedom now the new world order and political correctness.
They use to say too that we are to violent to belong guns and they attack all what bother their plans sure Hyppocrat and the constitution.
You are endangered like here because they cancel our constitution
and our bill of right.
A puter will not be able to care the health we are all different fe the hope of life with a same kind of cancer is very different…….
BE SURE THIS POEPLE WORRY THE DEATH MORE THAN AN INDIAN OR A CHRISTIAN and when they are at the end they would give all what they get for some more life.
Good praticians never need a puter to care the poeple it’s visible on their face and fe no need of authopsy for M Jackson.
They are building an evil mad society.To take power they are able to ride with the devil that was the marxism created by them which later
kill them.Happy that my cultur is larger including some greek I begon to translate a few greek and know about Demosthene the baby bed of our culture then Romans.We have to look backward to keep the right side…..
References :
I would agree that the oath is not productive to his purpose, but his purpose is not productive to the uneconomically productive elderly as it seems the objective is to lower the average life expectancy so as to make health care cheaper thereby allowing for more bike paths and hiking trails. Keep the amenities bought at the expense of an earlier death for the elderly, I’d prefer to have my mom around for another few years.
References :
Sure.
State run medicine is not about saving people but about saving dollars spent by the state and keeping people dependent to the state. An oath to save life would get in the way of letting die all the Grandmas and Grandpas in order to give the rest health care.
This is what is done in Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Belgium, and several other countries with state run medical care. Expensive drugs and treatments are denied to the elderly.
After all Grandma and Grandpa have already had a full life so why waste precious dollars extending their lives. Heart and joint replacements are expensive and well as all those medicines they take. One must think of all the preventative care that could be done for voters by not giving some expensive treatment to one old person who won`t live beyond the next election anyway. Especially if you just let them die.
References :
It is for the genocidal globalists.
References :
How can he call himself a Doctor?
He must live by the hypocrite’s oath instead of the Hippocratic Oath.
References :
This speaks to the heart of the matter. If we get the government involved in our health care, it will be rationed. Yes, people who are considered "too expensive" to treat, the elderly, people with disabilities, people who have chronic conditions and from there, it is a simple jump to people who disagree with the government the list goes on as to who can be discriminated against in the battle for dollars. This program will become eugenics just as Margaret Sanger dreamed about in her "birth control" program. Please check out this link:
http://www.notdeadyet.org/docs/eughis.html
What bothers me is that the masses are so content to be misled and believe the information they are "fed". And maybe if you are a young, healthy person who never has the misfortune of being disabled or coming down with a chronic disease, this program might be ideal for you. But if you have any chronic illnesses, if you are disabled, if you are in an accident or if your children are born with disabilities you must be prepared to die or allow your children to die so the government can "take care" of you. Health care will be rationed to those who are found worthy to live.
Will you be one of the ones chosen to be worthy of medical care or one of the ones denied health care because you do not fit the computer model for treatment? Are you willing to let the government make these decisions for you? for your children?
References :
http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL07/margaret_sanger_and_planned_pare.htm
http://www.lancasterlife.com/nazism_planned_parenthood.html
http://www.eadshome.com/MargaretSanger.htm
Utterly ridiculous. It keeps those who can’t afford the care from being thrown out on the streets. This so-called caring individual cares more about money then the hypothetical people he’s feigning concern for. Just another way to throw out morality to support an immoral philosophy and political agenda. This is another front on war against what is best in our culture and keeps it together. It is another nice way to unravel what makes America great.
References :
The Hippocratic Oath probably is inconvenient to a society that has moved from revering human life to a pragmatism that says, "What good is this sick person to me?"
We see this in the demand for abortion up to the moment of birth and the demand for infanticide for unwanted babies who survive abortion. Barack Obama cut his teeth in politics in Illinois by stonewalling the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which required medical care for babies who survive abortion. That would unnecessarily burden women and medical personnel who wanted the baby dead, said Obama.
In the compassionate society of liberalism, the government will decide who gets medical treatment and who dies. This is the flip side of the story of government providing for the indigent sick, for the government rather than the individual will decide who lives and who dies.
Interesting, when asked if he would let government decide such questions for his own family, Obama said no.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care."
Translation: We the liberal elite don’t have to suffer with you second-class Americans. We’re powerful and we’re rich.
References :
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1
Should the obese be given the same health care as the rest of us? Shouldn’t those that have an immaculate life style of vegetarian diet and continued physical fitness be the ones that most deserve our health care dollars? Careless drivers, smokers, obese, those that have risky hobbies and risky careers, all should be tracked and detailed accounting recorded on their national health care record. Why should I pay for those that don’t care about their health or risk their life? Or for those that have poor genetics, should those of us with good genetics pay for those with defects?
Why should someone be offered a liver transplant whose genetics would reject the transplant, or replace one that they destroyed by a poor lifestyle? Shouldn’t everyone be required to donate their body parts for the betterment of mankind? And only those that have the best survival ability allowed to use them.
The most productive to society should be given the most in health care. Those that do not contribute as much to society should not received the same healthcare as those that do.
We must use statistics to decide who deserves what and who will benefit most from the dollars spent.
References :
It is not possible to have universal health care which also includes every possible medical technology for every individual. The present method is rationing based on assets/income.
As a self-employed person I cannot afford health insurance, and my chronic condition means I am unlikely to be hired if there are other qualified candidates for the position.
Even if coverage was strictly limited, public health insurance would be a big improvement. And I am sure that at least thirty million other people would agree with me.
Sure there is rationing in the British, Canadian and Australian health service, but the situation there is ten times better than here. People are too greedy in the USA.
References :