Friday, 13 June 2008 04:55 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineToday's Express poll asks, "Do you think it's ethical to use undercover patients to evaluate doctors?"
My most immediate answer was yes. I mean, what better way to do it? Not-so-good doctors are likely to practice differently when they know the patient isn't for real. It's not so different from undercover cops seeing whether vendors will sell alcohol to minors, right?
An inside article brought up one concern I hadn't considered: taking up time that could be devoted to patients in actual dire need. But the AMA's proposed endorsement would include a system to prevent evaluators from doing that. They also would have to warn doctors of the possibility of undercover patients (not to the point that it defeats the purpose, I imagine) and not use negative reviews as punishment.
Now, on the previous page was an article about police telling classes at a high school that a bunch of classmates died in car crashes, which they learned after hours to be 100% false. "Officials at the 3,100 student school officials" (hmm, Department of Redundancy Department) are not at all sorry, because they hope the trauma will discourage DUIs.
This disturbed me in two ways: by going counter to my values, and by making me wonder if my values are contradicting one another. Here are two stories about people in positions of power lying for the sake of common safety. For years, I have despised all lying regardless of the cause it tries to advance. My attitude has relaxed a bit after finding some evidence that God sometimes approves (a discussion for another setting), but I still am very reluctant to consider it the best option in a given context.
The police action is arguably worse because they messed with emotions as well as information, and to younger people, who now will be even more cynical of authority. Doctors, meanwhile, would at least know to question the patient's authenticity and do no worse a job for it. They wouldn't be furious at the evaluators for blending in. They wouldn't make teary text messages about how they handled their last patient.
So, do you think my positions are justified? Yay to the AMA, nay to El Camino High? If not, do you think it's a matter of self-contradiction?
My most immediate answer was yes. I mean, what better way to do it? Not-so-good doctors are likely to practice differently when they know the patient isn't for real. It's not so different from undercover cops seeing whether vendors will sell alcohol to minors, right?
An inside article brought up one concern I hadn't considered: taking up time that could be devoted to patients in actual dire need. But the AMA's proposed endorsement would include a system to prevent evaluators from doing that. They also would have to warn doctors of the possibility of undercover patients (not to the point that it defeats the purpose, I imagine) and not use negative reviews as punishment.
Now, on the previous page was an article about police telling classes at a high school that a bunch of classmates died in car crashes, which they learned after hours to be 100% false. "Officials at the 3,100 student school officials" (hmm, Department of Redundancy Department) are not at all sorry, because they hope the trauma will discourage DUIs.
This disturbed me in two ways: by going counter to my values, and by making me wonder if my values are contradicting one another. Here are two stories about people in positions of power lying for the sake of common safety. For years, I have despised all lying regardless of the cause it tries to advance. My attitude has relaxed a bit after finding some evidence that God sometimes approves (a discussion for another setting), but I still am very reluctant to consider it the best option in a given context.
The police action is arguably worse because they messed with emotions as well as information, and to younger people, who now will be even more cynical of authority. Doctors, meanwhile, would at least know to question the patient's authenticity and do no worse a job for it. They wouldn't be furious at the evaluators for blending in. They wouldn't make teary text messages about how they handled their last patient.
So, do you think my positions are justified? Yay to the AMA, nay to El Camino High? If not, do you think it's a matter of self-contradiction?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
In the first case the "test" patient is an instrument of evaluation. The ruse requires no behavioral change from the doctor.
In the second case, a lie is being told that is shown quickly to be false, undermining the reliability of the people telling the kids not to drink and drive. The only message this really sends is "distrust authority."
no subject
Hmm, now I'm thinking about Death's comment that "We have to believe the small lies in order to believe the big ones." I recommend watching "The Hogfather" on DVD. :)
no subject
no subject
Go ahead and say it, I'm strange.
no subject