Hazards of biliary tract surgery
G. Mcpherson,I. Benjamin,L. Blumgart
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.283.6286.307-a
1981-07-25
British Medical Journal
Abstract:In the first lecture, Kennedy claims that the definitions of health, illness, and disease are social and that they contain ethical judgments which have political consequences. Therefore medicine is above all a political enterprise determined by moral values. But the way in which Western medicine is organised and operates both obscures and denies these fundamental facts. What is hard to grasp is that this applies not only to the marginal cases of homosexuality, alcoholism, and mental illness but to the whole of medicine. What Kennedy does not make clear, however, is that the ability to obscure these facts is due not to scientific method as such but to scientism, the abuse and misinterpretation of these methods from a lack of appreciation of their social origins and implications. It is scientism which allows doctors to control medicine and which has to be unmasked. It has given doctors enormous power to make moral judgments about people's lives, while exaggerating their technical power to influence the main patterns of health and illness. These two aspects are intimately related, because it is the ability to claim technical power which allows the denial of moral and political power. These fallacies are held not only by doctors, however, but by society in general; so medicine is not simply a conspiracy against the laity, seeking always to control more and more areas of people's lives. Nor does the unmasking seek to remove all moral and political power from doctors-it attempts only to reveal what their true power is, so that the public will be in a position to determine its degree and the manner in which it is used. Having shown the need to unmask medicine, Kennedy is further at fault in implying that medicine would have no option but to follow one particular course, away from treatment towards prevention. This is Kennedy's own prescription but it has no more intrinsic weight than that of any other individual. Power having been given to the public, they must be free to decide how to use it. They could, for example, allow doctors to continue as at present; but the difference would be that the injustices of the system would be open to scrutiny. It would therefore be the moral and political values that we as a society chose to adopt which would determine medicine's future, and the form that the prescription would take would derive from this. In summary, I would criticise Kennedy on two counts: for not distinguishing sufficiently between the legitimate use of scientific method and scientism and for not revealing that his prescription rcsted on his own judgment. The first point has allowed both Swales3 and Sir Douglas Black to claim correctly that prevention relies on science just as much as treatment does. Sir Douglas is then able to argue for more scientific problem solving, not less" in both treatment and prevention, without having to spell out that he is really talking about scientism. Once this is understood it is clear that his analysis is logically in direct opposition to Kennedy's, despite the conclusions of Inequalities in Health. The second point is important in showing that any individual's prescription, whether that of Kennedy or that of Black, represents no more than his own personal view. For Kennedy to see the NHS as a failure is ultimately a judgment that he is passing on the present values of our society, and not merely on medicine. Sir Douglas Black rejects the judgment and so believes that the NHS requires only some adjustment. But if we accept it we will be forced to re-examine the whole pattern of medicine in society.