The Answer to the AMA's Feckless Disregard for its Physician Members. by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Yesterday, in an open letter to the American Medical Association, I called out the organization for its cavalier embrace of critical race theory, which it declared in a white paper entitled "Organization Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity." As I mentioned then, seldom have I come across a more destructive, divisive, and inflammatory document by a professional organization than the one published by the AMA earlier this month. Truth be told, however, the "Organization Strategic Plan' is only the latest in a long series of Leftist forays undertaken by the AMA, but this one is different, as this is the first time the AMA has embraced a Leftist propaganda item absent any meaningful tether to healthcare. The AMA's Origins It should be noted that the AMA began as a conservative, problem solving organization bent on improving the nation's quality of care and of the physicians who provided it. Organized in response to the nation's first medical malpractice crisis in the nineteenth century, the American Medical Association made significant strides in the development of medical education standards and licensure requirements so that those holding themselves out to be physicians could be differentiated from the quacks, potion makers, and charmers passing themselves off as healers. Later, when America's socialists attempted to implement a near-universal government run healthcare insurance scheme, it was the AMA that defeated it, calling it communism. In 1965, the AMA also opposed the implementation of Medicare, correctly foreseeing that eventually, the government behemoth would control physician earnings and the practice of medicine. But things changed in the AMA after the passage of Medicare. There began an incestuous relationship between itself and government that would slowly erode the organization's allegiance to its members. The key lay in medical billing codes. As it waded into the healthcare delivery business, the government needed a communication device that would define the services performed by providers and the conditions for which those services were administered. The AMA became the point organization on the project adopting the International Classification of Diseases (ICD codes) and creating the Current Procedural Terminology codes (CPT codes). As the AMA's partnership with government increased, its unbridled fiduciary role to its members shrank. Predictably, the AMA became more dependent on government-generated income while its negotiating abilities against it weakened. A Sharp Left Turn on a Slippery Slope Things took a turn for the worse when the AMA openly endorsed elective abortions as a contraceptive procedure. Prior to the 1960s, the AMA vehemently opposed abortions. Largely because of the overwhelming consensus in opposition to the issue, abortion on demand was not one of the AMA's central priorities. In fact, in 1969, a resolution from its left flank calling for the support of abortion as a contraceptive method was vehemently opposed by its House of Delegates and described as "extreme." Just six months later, however, the AMA reversed its position despite the constancy of the anti-abortion opinion of its members. In 1970, the AMA did not switch position on abortion because its members' opinions had radically shifted. Rather, it openly did so for political and economic expediency.[1] Whether it recognized it or not, abandoning the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society caused a seismic shift in the organization's psyche. On the one hand, the AMA convinced itself that it was appropriate to act against its members' wills in order to protect its political and economic positions. On the other, the AMA found it acceptable to abandon the zealous protection of all human life. For the AMA, despite the language in the Hippocratic Oath ("I will not give a legal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."), it was now okay for physicians to kill the unborn. From there, the descent into socialism and the abandonment of its members' priorities rapidly progressed. In 2009, the AMA agreed to support Obamacare, despite staunch opposition from a large swath of its members, in exchange for a mere promise by the Obama Administration of a $245 billion plan to permanently correct the formula determining how physicians were reimbursed by Medicare. What physicians got in return was something even worse: the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). Then, on April 26, 2021, the AMA blindly and irresponsibly supported the practice of gender transition-related care for minor patients. Disguising its Leftist agenda with the cloak of preventing the "dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine," the AMA told the National Governors Association that it opposed "state legislation that would prohibit medically necessary gender transition-related care for minor patients." Mind you, its message was not a call for increased funding for research and improved access to non-surgical and non-pharmacologically-transitioning treatments for children, but rather a demand that such irreversible procedures, like the lobotomies of old, were not to be opposed. To this point, whether it was abortion, medical economics, healthcare policy, or the treatment of gender identity, Leftist as they may have been, the AMA's positions were closely tethered to issues directly related to healthcare policy or the practice of medicine. But that has now changed. Just three weeks following its support of a controversial field lacking overwhelming consensus within the House of Medicine, the AMA now ventures into an increasingly radical position by embracing critical race theory and the contention that the United States is inherently and systemically racist. This time it does this under the guise of improving healthcare access. Make no mistake; there isn't a respectable physician in the United States who does not wish for the improved accessibility and affordability of healthcare. There is no caring physician who doesn't want minorities and the poor to get the care they need in as easy a manner as possible. But these sentiments are a far cry from an embrace of the assumptions contained in critical race theory. Interestingly, in its "Organization Strategic Plan," the AMA claims that "[t]he origins of this strategic plan date back to the AMA's Annual House of Delegates meeting in June of 2018 where a time-limited Health Equity Task Force [was created to address] inequities in health care." Despite this claim none of the AMA delegates with whom I have spoken this week recall there being a debate to consider embracing critical race theory or repaying previously oppressed groups for injustices committed against them in the distant past. If there had been such a resolution, it would have never been adopted. Yes, I am saying that the body creating this document acted without the authorization of AMA membership, as the AMA itself has done in the past. What to Do? It is clear that the AMA has become a Leftist organization driven by its affinity for socialism and the centralization of healthcare delivery away from the hands of the physicians it claims to represent. It has recurrently and with increasing ease broken away from the desires of its members in pursuit of its own self-serving, protective agenda. As a result, physicians are left without reliable representation. In the meantime, the practice of medicine continues to slide into a corporate abyss far distant from its origins and its intended ends. So what is one to do? There really is only one answer. Schism. America's physicians, and their patients, are in desperate need of a medical organization designed to represent them; one that will protect physician independence and that will pursue medical education without government interference or meddling; and although there is the Association for American Physicians and Surgeons, which nobly provides a libertarian voice for some of America's doctors, the alternative needs to be broader. Medicine needs an organization that will lobby government for physician practices and for improvements in healthcare delivery and not advocate for vogue and misguided social causes outside the medical profession's sphere. It needs a team that will promote legislation prohibiting the co-mingling of professional advocacy efforts and the provision of paid services to government. Such an organization must serve as the umbrella for its various state chapters and subspecialty societies and a haven for like-minded medical organizations seeking shelter from the hostile and reckless actions of the AMA. Until such time, all of America's physicians sit at the mercy of the next feckless act the AMA decides to undertake. [1]The FMA did support a bill opposing late term abortions that year sponsored by then Congressman and now Florida Supreme Court Justice, Charles T. Canady, but the bill specifically addressed late term abortions. The AMA appears to still oppose late-term abortions. Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
5 Comments
An Open Letter to the American Medical Association by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Dear Sir and Madam, I read with great disgust your "Organization Strategic Plan to Embed Racial Justice and Advance Health Equity." Seldom have I read a more destructive, divisive, and inflammatory document by a professional organization, and I have never been more ashamed of being associated with the American Medical Association at any time in my career. The suggestion that our country owes anyone "equity" because of "past injustices" is revolting. My family arrived in this country in 1961. We have not been a party to any of the injustices that occurred so many decades ago, yet you hold my family, my colleagues, and me in the same light that you hold the cruelest slaveholder. How dare you say that I, a person who is forced to answer on a census form as being white/Caucasian, but who on a different question answers Hispanic/Latino/Cuban, should be in anyway held responsible for those who traded slaves and the African chieftains who willingly sold their tribesmen and women to the Europeans four hundred years ago? How dare you say that I, and every one of my colleagues who have spent our lives treating the poor, minorities, majorities, and anyone else who may stumble into our emergency rooms, legally or not, without bias or favor, and without any chance of being reimbursed for our training and our efforts, should be thought of as members of an oppressive consortium designed to inflict evil or inequity to those who we selflessly treat? How dare you join the countless number of camouflaged communists who furtively and purposely try to confuse those around them by conflating equity with equality? Ours is a nation built on the premise of equal standing under the law and only that. Everything else is to be achieved through excellence, dedication, training, and hard work. Equity, on the other hand, is achieved by fiat, by taking from some and giving it to others at the point of a gun. Few better ruses exist for the state control of the means of production than through the illusory promise of achieving equity instead of equal standing under the law. This is a dangerous track you are entering from which you and the social system you seek may never be able to return. You claim that we live in a land that was taken from Native Americans hundreds of years ago. That may be so, but you neglect that the same is true of all other civilizations on earth. The Babylonians invaded Israel. The Norwegians invaded England. The Visigoths invaded Rome. Rome invaded Egypt and North Africa. The Turks invaded Constantinople. The Mongols invaded Europe. The Germans invaded Russia. The Russians starved their people. The Germans committed holocaust upon the Jews. The Calusas ransacked and sacrificed their neighboring tribes. The Caribes attacked and imprisoned the Taínos. The Mayans continuously conquered each other and tore their victims' hearts out while they were still beating. Mao starved 69 million people and the People's Republic of China killed millions with their latest virus. Every single civilization, even those in Africa and the Far East, have conquered and been conquered. It is a fact of life and a staple of history. Your skewed and biased view of the events that took place between the Europeans and Native Americans while ignoring every other injustice carried out throughout history upon the very groups against which you point an accusatory finger is ignorant, hypocritical, and insulting to the 100% of us living Americans who played no part in the invasion nor were victims of the conquests. You have abused your position as the self-proclaimed purveyor of the medical profession to promote a self-proclaimed social(ist) agenda against the will of so many of those whom you falsely claim to represent. I will oppose you with all my being, all my strength, my intellect, and my voice. I will oppose you from here to the ends of the earth. I will oppose you because of your disgusting abuse of the great privilege that has been bestowed upon you, and because of the great insult you asperse upon me by suggesting that I carry anything other than love, charity, and good will towards every human being that I meet and have treated in my 30 years of practice as a physician. There is a magnificent document whose signers pledged their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honor to a cause much greater than themselves. Today, I pledge the same in opposition of you. Here's to seeing the end of your filthy, disgusting, and vile organization. Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Former Florida State Representative Former Congressional Candidate Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. The Many Reasons Why Republicans Should Kill the Jan 6 Investigation Committee by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. On Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed a bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan, independent investigatory committee to evaluate the events of January 6. The bill still needs to get through the Senate to become law. Democrats, who have admittedly compromised down from the original bill's proposal, call the bill "fair and necessary." In reality, the commission, regardless of its outcome, is a Democratic political stunt and ought to be stopped by Republicans in the Senate. Congress is a joke. It can't tell its head from its backside even if equipped with the latest GPS locating technology. It is a dysfunctional body overwhelmed to the point of paralysis by its partisanship and tribal allegiances. To think that Congress is capable of "finding the truth," as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims is the prospective committee's objective, displays either a shameless level of disingenuousness or a pathologic delusion about the legislative body she claims to lead. Additionally, "getting to the truth" is not Congress's role. Except in one glaring situation, Congress never serves as a tribunal. It is the country's legislative branch, not its judiciary. Therefore, the purpose for a congressional investigation is always in support of legislation designed to address an issue affecting the nation. Congress's investigatory powers specifically do not exist for the purpose of either searching for truth" or " holding someone accountable." A congressional investigation is a means towards a legislative or regulatory end, and never as an end to itself. Here, there is no legislative purpose for the proposed investigation. Not a single supporter of the January 6 investigatory committee has suggested any potentially legislative solution to the events that took place on that day. There were many laws broken when a group of thugs penetrated the Capitol to achieve whatever ill-conceived goal they aimed to accomplish. There is no new law that could prevent the event from taking place, and there is no statute providing the federal government with powers it lacked to appropriately address the situation. The inadequacy of the response to the assault on the nation's Capitol was not statutory; it was one centered on poor leadership and personnel incompetence, beginning with the person responsible for overseeing the Capitol Police, Speaker Pelosi herself. This brings us to the one time when Congress's investigatory powers serve a judicial purpose and the most glaring reason for opposed to the January 6 investigatory committee. The only time Congress is called to an investigatory position is when it is conducting an impeachment proceeding. In fact, Congress actually did this in late 2020 and into 2021 when it impeached President Donald J. Trump due to his alleged role in the January 6 melee. This was the time and the proceeding through which Congress was to "seek the truth" and "hold someone to account." It refused to do so. Instead, the House of Representatives, led by the same party that holds it now, decided to forego all hearings, all inquiries, and any semblance of investigation so as to send its poorly supported, single-article-impeachment to the Senate. In so doing, the House conceded its opportunity to conduct an investigation that would not only afford the President of the United States his due process rights, but it would also allow for a better understanding of exactly what transpired that day and during its run-up. Now, Congress wants a second bite at the apple it had previously hastily discarded' only this time it wants a second look without a legislative and constructive purpose. Although the Democrats (and some Republicans) don't recognize them, there are reasons why our nation's governmental departments are hindered by checks, balances and separations of power. In short, it is to control the overly zealous and unconstrained application of power. What the Democrats seek here is the salacious use of its investigatory powers for the pure partisan purposes of forwarding the political agenda of the majority while frivolously harassing the minority. This type of behavior is reminiscent of those displayed by King George III, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Nikita Khrushchev, among countless others, and distinctly antithetical to our American political structure. In terms of searching for the truth, the fact is that there are already extensive criminal probes investigating this issue and as these culminate in trials, they will reveal "the truth" and hold the criminal who coordinated this event. In short the pursuit of a congressional committee to investigate the events of January 6 is a mere, prurient political stunt designed to hurt, maim and destroy. It specifically will not serve to develop any productive insights on an issue affecting the whole nation. Republicans ought therefore to oppose such an open display of purposeless political harassment at all cost and hold the Democrats to account for pursuing it. Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. CDC: From Bad to Worse by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. Admittedly, the CDC's announcement that vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear masks except under certain circumstances was met with great jubilation by many. However, in reality, the decree is not only nonsensical, but it may have opened the door to the widespread use of vaccine passports. In the latest incarnation of its continuously evolving recommendations, the CDC is now saying that fully vaccinated individuals are "free" to engage in practically any indoor activity without a mask. Notable exceptions include traveling in public transport and commercial airplanes, visiting one's doctor, and entering hospitals and nursing homes, where masks are still "required" according to the CDC. Leaving the issue of commercial airlines and healthcare facilities aside where its universal masking recommendations still apply, the CDC has now placed every business in America in a precarious situation. What is the movie theater owner supposed to do with these two new classes of individuals? Will he allow all to enter without masks, instilling fear amongst many (rational or not)? Will he continue to require full mask compliance, in which case its attendance will continue to remain low? Or will he reach for the proverbial "vaccine passport," which will offend many? The differing opinions on how to handle such inconsistent recommendations have already caused confusion and controversy. Since the CDC's update on Friday, I have yet to visit a single restaurant where mask use is required. (Remember, I live in Southwest Florida). Additionally, my trip this weekend to a medical conference in Tampa was quite revealing. The hotel (a large one) still had its signs up indicating that masks were required in all public areas, yet I observed only about 20% of people wearing masks. In the second floor conference area where the doctors' conference was being held, I saw two people wearing masks out of a few hundred people in attendance. Interestingly, they were both young physicians. In the corporate arena, Walmart, Trader Joe's, and Costco have announced they are dropping their mask mandates, while Target, Macy's, and Starbucks will continue to observe theirs. Meanwhile, I still have not seen or heard of a business establishment allowing only proven vaccinated individuals to access its facilities without a mask. Additionally, Bishop Frank Dewane has rescinded all masks mandates in all churches within his Venice diocese while continuing them in its catholic schools The path moving forward seems unavoidable. First, most Americans are all-too-happy to get rid of their masks. Vaccinated or not, the overwhelming majority will ditch their masks in practically all public settings. Returning to mask mandates will be a very difficult task indeed as Americans look back at the futility of their masking efforts, particularly in light of a healthcare system that does not appear to be particularly overwhelmed. Second, businesses will find themselves in the awkward situation of not knowing what to do about the barrage of unmasked individuals visiting their establishments. Those holding on to the mask mandates will eventually capitulate, as customers either fuss or move to their competitors. Increasingly, the mask mandates will become a thing of the past with only healthcare facilities and airlines holding out. The overall effect of the public's reaction to this confusing and unverifiable mask "mandate" is to obfuscate the CDC's decision. The beleaguered organization, already riddled with inaccurate information, questionable opinions, and obvious conflicts of interest will largely be ignored, and America will head into the inevitable "next pandemic" less sure of its public health leadership than it was before. Overall, this has been a poor showing by the CDC. A poor showing indeed. Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. Unless I See the Mark of the Nails in His Hands. . . by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. When Jesus heard of Lazarus's illness, he was shaken. He loved Lazarus. Lazarus was from Bethsaida and the brother of Mary, the woman who had anointed Jesus with oil and had dried his feet with her hair. According to John, upon hearing the news of Lazarus's illness, Jesus remained where he was for two days, after which time he decided to go back to Judea to attend to Lazarus. For Jesus, aware of Lazarus's death, their trip to Judea was for the purposes of resurrecting Lazarus "so that you may believe." For the apostles, the idea sounded more like a suicide mission since Jesus had already been nearly stoned there a short time earlier. Their skepticism was voiced by St. Thomas the Apostle when he uttered what had to have been a sarcastic and disrespectful remark, "Let us go, that we may die with him." Jn. 11:16. This flippant remark is the first we hear of Thomas, the twin, in the New Testament, but it is emblematic of the three expressions in the Bible he is recorded to have said. Thomas's second utterance takes place in John 14:5 during the Last Supper. Jesus had just washed the apostles' feet, announced the impending betrayal by Judas, and given the greatest commandment of loving one another as he had loved them. Jesus had also just prophesied Pete's betrayal. There must have been a strong sense that something big was about to happen, which was heightened by Jesus's announcement that he was going to leave to his Father's house and how there would be a place there for them as well when they arrived. It is at this point that Thomas, insensitively, if not stupidly, asked, "Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" One can only imagine the frustration Jesus must have felt upon hearing the comment. His apostles, the ones responsible for taking the New Covenant to the world, on the night before his death, were still claiming not to know what he was talking about! Or perhaps Jesus knew that their necessary insight would not develop until after Pentecost. Regardless, Jesus turned the situation into yet another teaching moment when he patiently responded, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Philip, not to be left behind, followed up with, "Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us." It is at this point that Jesus finally lets his frustrations show, asking, "Have I been with you for so long time and you still do not know me, Philip?" He continued, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else, believe because of the works themselves. Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it." But it is his third and final utterance for which Thomas is most famous. After Jesus's resurrection, while the disciples were cowering in a locked room, fearing for their lives, Jesus appeared to them, exclaiming, "Peace be with you." He came to them that Sunday evening with the express purpose of sending them to the world, as the Father had sent him, and breathed upon them the Holy Spirit. When Thomas heard of what had transpired in his absence, the whole event seemed so unbelievable to him that he arrogantly answered, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nail-marks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." As we now know, Thomas was in for a great surprise when Jesus appeared to the disciples the following Sunday, this time with Thomas present. It was there that one of the most powerful and telling scenes in the Bible took place when Thomas was humbled by being forced to place his finger in the Lord's hand and his hand in the Lord's punctured side. Thomas's only retort was to famously exclaim, "My Lord and my God!" But Jesus's reprimand was not finished saying, "Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed." Despite Thomas's arrogant start, he turned out to be one of the Lord's greatest fishers of men. Tradition holds that Thomas traveled all the way to northern India, arriving in 52 A.D. where he converted numerous families and set up at least seven churches. Additionally, there are a number of apocryphal works bearing his name. One is the "Gospel of Thomas" depicting the infancy of Jesus Christ. It paints a picture of what modern readers would describe as an immature, hyper-reactive, emotionally unstable, superhuman character with extraordinary powers he cannot control. The Gospel of Thomas, which dates back to the fourth century, reads so unbelievably and is so inconsistent with Jesus's character, that it is impossible to identify any elements of truth within it, making it unhelpful in the understanding our Lord. The other is the "Acts of Thomas," detailing the life of Thomas while in India in fantastical style. It too is unhelpful because of the exaggerated narrations, although there are a number of accounts within it still upheld within the eastern traditions. Despite the unreliability of the "Acts of Thomas", appears that the twin did indeed proselytize in India, where he was martyred at St. Thomas Mount in Chennai on July 3, 72. His relics were brought to Ortona in Abruzzo, Italy in 1258 where they still rest at the St Thomas's Basilica. The relics themselves have a remarkable history, having survived the Muslim siege on the city in 1566. The relics also miraculously survived World War II having been coincidentally moved from the Basilica's bell tower just weeks prior its destruction by the liberating Allied Forces. Help support the publication of more articles like these. Donate to The Federalist Pages, or Join The Founding Fathers Club. Read more from our Christianity Series by visiting thefederalistpages/news. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. Physicians Increasingly Losing Control of Medicine by Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D. What is likely the most significant development in healthcare is also one that most will not see reported. A survey from the American Medical Association has found, for the first time, that the majority of physicians in the United States work outside physician-owned practices. According to the AMA, only 49.1% of doctors work in physician-owned practices, a drop of 5 percentage points from the prior survey performed in 2018 and an 11% drop from 2012 when the number was 60%. The egress was mostly towards hospital-controlled practices or direct hospital employment, which now comprise 40% of physicians' practices. Interestingly, there is a new addition to physician employment: practice ownership by private equity firms. In a survey choice the AMA had not previously offered, 4% of physicians indicated they worked in a practice owned by a private equity firm. In 2018, although the choice was not directly offered, the relationship was identified amongst 2% of the responders who marked "other" and then wrote "private equity firm" as their employer. The trend is significant beyond the obvious implication of who controls a person's healthcare. When physicians were the primary owner of medical practices, the relationship between patients and their doctors tended to be more intimate and personal. There was much less room for intervention by administrators and CFOs whose primary interest was the company's bottom line. Additionally, when the physician owned the practice, there was no doubt as to where the decision-making buck stopped. Now, there are many more hidden layers to healthcare, such as corporate interests and the zeal with which hospitals rush to comply with regulatory requirements. But below the surface there is perhaps a much more pernicious force. Medicine's professional organizations such as the AMA (the ones that are supposed to represent the practice of medicine) have increasingly been undermined by interests outside of science and patient advocacy. Rather, because its members are increasingly employed by corporations and non-healthcare providers, their positions on healthcare increasingly representing the hospital and the corporation. The overall pressure is to place healthcare decisions further away from the patients' hands and nestle them within those of the hospitals. Dr. Jane Orient, the Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons observes, "The corporate practice of medicine has long been considered unethical and illegal." Today, it is increasingly in danger of becoming the norm. Please support our ability to cover the events most important to you. Click here to join The Founding Fathers Club or donate to The Federalist Pages. Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida. He served in the Florida House of Representatives. He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons. He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2021
Categories
All
|