Cassandra 's curse: Interventional pain management, policy and preserving meaning against a market mentality.
J. Giordano
IF: 4.396
2006-07-01
Pain Physician
Abstract:In Greek mythology, Cassandra was the most beautiful of King Priam’s daughters. So striking was her beauty and demeanor that the god Apollo became smitten with her and bequeathed to her the gift of prophecy. But in exchange for his generosity, he sought to seduce her. Wishing to be virtuous, Cassandra refused. Apollo’s retribution was to levy a curse upon Cassandra, such that all who heard her would be incredulous of her prophecies. The tragedy of Cassandra is that despite her prescience, she was rendered impotent to affect the future and avert calamity (1). The power of mythology is derived from the perdurability of meaning in metaphors that are relevant even in modern times. Thus, I pose the question has interventional pain management suffered “Cassandra’s curse”? For although scientific progress has led to an increased understanding of the mechanisms of pain and pain therapeutics, the administrative and economic infrastructure that fosters support (or lack thereof) for the provision of medical services are such that we are becoming ever more disempowered to use this knowledge to effectively care for those in pain. This paradox reflects the corporate systematization and commodification of medicine in general. As Laxmaiah Manchikanti (2) illustrates in this volume, economic corporatization of medicine is governmentally directed to subsidy agencies (namely Medicare and Medicaid) that ultimately influence, if not explicitly control, the climate of fiscal resource allocations manifested by other third-party payors. This has affected the practice of interventional pain management through a pervasive third-party focus upon proximate-cost containment that threatens the moral obligation to safely and effectively treat the pain patient. On a broader scale, this commodification is the result of numerous processes, including but not limited to a reciprocal interaction between a technological value-ladeness, Post-modern consumerist mindset and an imposing market-model mentality (3, 4). I argue that ethical medical practice should not, and cannot be subsumed by an ethos of business (5). I base this argument upon the following premises: First, it is the ends, or telos, of any undertaking that establishes its nature, directs the ultimate focus of its activities, and often determines the conduct of those actions (6). The telos of business is profit; the telos of medicine is the beneficent and just provision of care to the patient (7-9). Thus, medicine is not business; and while there is an aspect of business within the practice of medicine, it is crucial to recognize that the act of medicine is dedicated by covenant to the good of the patient. Second, medicine is non-proprietary, and is not a public commodity to be restricted through market manipulation. As William F. May states, the covenantal fiduciary of medicine obligates respect of three fundamental features: 1) that medicine (as healthcare) is a fundamental, not instrumental good; 2) that it is not the only fundamental good, and as such must be efficient and cost-effective – not in the economic sense, but as moral imperatives against waste or injustice; and 3) that medicine is a public good (not a public commodity) and as such those who are involved in any domain of medicine bear the responsibility of public investment in that fundamental good (10). Even if we were to concede that some aspect of medicine is a business, it is essential to recognize that any business exists to accommodate the needs of people, both individually and within community, and as such must reflect, and be sensitive to the values that support and determine those needs (11). Therefore, I opine that the corporate domain of medicine should be oriented and adherent to the moral values of those it serves. In other words, the “business of medicine” should be consistent with the ends, and uphold the moral values and obligations of medicine, rather than the moral affirmations and ends of medicine being deconstructed or bastardized to merge with those of business. Both pain physician and pain patient place primary moral value upon the provision of right and good care that is engendered through the clinical encounter, and which reflects affirmation of and obligation to reciprocal trust, authenticity, and veracity (8, 12). Thus, patient and physician exist in community James Giordano, PhD