The Forgotten Man of Socialized Medicine
Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
THE FORGOTTEN MAN OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE (Ayn Rand)
This is the explanation given by a distinguished brain surgeon of why he joined Galt’s strike.
“I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only ‘to serve.’ That a man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”
This is the explanation given by a distinguished brain surgeon of why he joined Galt’s strike.
“I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only ‘to serve.’ That a man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it—and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.”
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I think individuals within a society can adequately provide for their defense voluntarily. Lack of government (as defined above) doesn't necessarily mean everyone is on their own.to fight the bad guys. Interestingly enough, some Americans who pay their taxes and supposedly have the "protection" of government laws, police, and courts are turning to the free market and private security as the only effective solution: http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/citize...
As for the other crime - it is just a social pact. If you stay with us the state will handle our "light-work". Outside of society each person has to provide the "force of law" themselves - think "wild west".
My doctor has a relatively small practice. I actually knew some of his patients before I met him. He's active in the community, drives an older car, has a nice family, etc. Some of his staff have been with him for decades. He isn't in it to get rich. He is in medicine to help people. He does get paid, etc. but it's not the the same degree as some who are charging for everything they can as often as they can.
But some choose, for their own reasons, to serve in positions where the situation is weighted towards cutting edge science, and making the lives of some kids better, like Shriners', rather than grind a bunch of patients through and racking up the insurance remuneration. Different ways to practice for different doctors.
To the best of my knowledge, particularly for Shriners', the patient pays nothing for the services rendered for the malady they were admitted for.
And I don't think we should underestimate the power of the free market, and the ability of creative individuals to get things done despite the obstacles. Here's a great article about a new trend in medicine: http://reason.com/archives/2013/03/13/th... Here's a quote from it: "Direct primary care is part of a larger trend of physician-entrepreneurs all across the country fighting to bring transparent prices and market forces back to health care."
Atlas Shrugged is obviously a statement that we own ourselves, and should be able to withdraw our consent and not be governed if it conflicts with our values That seems to be the ideal Rand is holding up very often, but then she backpedals into minarchism. To me, holding both views simultaneously must be a source of cognitive dissonance.
Load more comments...