This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (20)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Fredrick R. Abrams, MD

JAMA. 1986;256(13):1784-1785.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IF THE physician fails to maintain the primacy of patient advocacy, he has failed his profession and his patient. The "negative" incentives to save money for prospective payment systems, a health maintenance organization, or a governmental socialized medical system are as bad as the "positive" incentives of a fee-for-service system to overtest or overtreat for physician aggrandizement. Physicians must practice on behalf of their patients. They cannot divide their loyalty, and I am concerned that this basic role is seriously threatened.

In view of rapid changes in the provision of medical care in our country, a recent case in England¹ (the differences in jurisprudence and health care access) may be a distant early warning to us in the United States. I believe it illustrates a standard of consent adopted in England that differs substantially from the more complete disclosure in the United States. The English . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
From The Center for Applied Biomedical Ethics at Rose Medical Center, Denver.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to The Center for Applied Biomedical Ethics at Rose Medical Center, 4567 E Ninth Ave, Denver, CO 80220 (Dr Abrams).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?