|
An historical take on the physician's charter CMAJ 2000;162:1121 In response to: C.P.W. Warren Peter Warren makes the reasonable point that some issues raised in the CMA's Charter for Physicians1 are not new. But this is quite beside the point. The existence of historical sources for contemporary issues does not argue for the Charter for Physicians as the solution. Moreover, to take an historical view, Warren does not point out that a statement of rights on behalf of physicians, as opposed to the obligations typically found in a code of ethics, is unprecedented. We find the Charter for Physicians problematic for 2 reasons. First, the Charter purports to be something it is not. We acknowledge that it uses the rhetoric of needs, but this language is misleading; the document is actually a statement of physician rights. Second, legitimate charters of rights are either for all citizens or for oppressed groups. Physicians are a powerful and wealthy professional group with neither need of nor legitimate claim to special rights. The only course left to entrench the claims found in the Charter would be a democratic process involving all parties physicians, government, hospitals and patients on an equal basis. Since the Charter for Physicians is a unilateral declaration, it has no force in a democratic society. Warren, along with other respondents [J. Patil]2, [T. Temple]3, [A. Piver]4, [D.H. Smith]5 to our article, fails to see that the Charter for Physicians does not serve well the goal of preserving the health care system. Sadly, it may further the public's perception that too many physicians in Canada are more committed to financial gain than to altruistic service.
Nuala Kenny
References
© 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors |