Sophistry in American medicine? Platonic reflections on expertise, influence and the public’s health in the democratic context

Author:

Goldstein Evan V

Abstract

Without question, the American medical craft—the physicians, clinicians and healthcare organisations that comprise the American healthcare sector—provides immense value to patients and contributes expertise on matters relevant to the public’s health. However, several conspicuous realities about healthcare in America should give the reader pause. Most problematic are the comparative measures of access to care, quality of care, life expectancy, racial health disparity and cost, all of which demonstrate how many Americans experience relatively lower value public health than other Western liberal democratic states. Since the early 1900s, American medical craft behaviour contributed to suboptimal social investment in public health, successfully influencing greater medical investment and higher healthcare expenditure relative to social welfare investments. Today, American policymakers seek the ‘holy grail’, a mythical panacea that purports to restrict spending and improve care quality and value, leading the USA to chase ‘technocratic solutions to political problems’. This paper explores the claim that the USA is hampered by suboptimal public health decision making. Public health decision making has been historically impacted by the overextended reach of medical craft expertise—technê in Platonic terms of art—as permitted by the American democratic political system. American policymakers must not forget that the debate over technê, epistêmê, sophistry and who should have authority in public affairs is not new. Rather, it is an ancient debate, and now as then, the ancient arguments remain relevant in a democratic context. For particularly helpful insight, one ought to look no further than the lessons of Plato’s dialogues. Platonic lessons on expertise and decision making can enlighten our understanding of modern public health decision making, specifically regarding the appropriation, allocation and distribution of health-related resources in the state.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Philosophy,Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Reference51 articles.

1. Whitman DG , Raad R . Bending the Productivity Curve: Why America Leads the World in Medical Innovation, 2009.

2. Fuchs VR . Who shall live?: health, economics and social choice : World Scientific Publishing Co Inc, 1974.

3. Prasad V . Cited in Dubner, S. “Bad Medicine, Part 1: The Story of 98.6”. Freakonomics Radio. 2016 http://freakonomics.com/podcast/bad-medicine-part-1-story-98-6/.

4. OECD. Health at a Glance 2015: How Does the United States Compare? 2015 https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Health-at-a-Glance-2015-Key-Findings-UNITED-STATES.pdf.

5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. “Historical”. 2018 https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html (accessed 25 Feb 2018).

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3