Harris John M
J.M. Harris Jr is former executive director of continuing medical education, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.
Acad Med. 2017 Sep;92(9):1236-1240. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001566.
There is agreement that the complex relationship between medicine and society is best described as a metaphorical social contract and that professionalism is the medical profession's contribution to this contract. Metaphors can help clarify abstract concepts, but they can also be abused if the counterfactual attributes of a metaphor become attributed to its subject. This seems to be happening with medical professionalism, which has sometimes been reduced to a contracted deliverable and a bargaining chip. The undesirable attributes of the social contract metaphor may be hindering efforts to understand and teach medical professionalism.Despite its theoretical weaknesses, the social contract metaphor has historical credibility because of its alleged association with the 1847 Code of Medical Ethics and the subsequent ascension of regular (allopathic) medicine in the early 20th century. However, the record does not support an argument that the intended purpose of the 1847 Code was to create a social contract or that one ever arose. The alternative account that a contract did arise, but physicians were poor partners, is neither satisfying nor explanatory.As now used, medicine's social contract metaphor has serious theoretical and historic weaknesses. Medical educators should remove this narrow and overworked metaphor from their discussions of professionalism. By doing this, educators and the profession in general would only lose the ability to threaten themselves with the cancellation of their social contract. In return they would open the door to a more complex and fruitful consideration of medical professionalism and medicine's relationship with society.
人们一致认为,医学与社会之间的复杂关系最好被描述为一种隐喻性的社会契约,而专业精神是医学专业对这一契约的贡献。隐喻有助于阐明抽象概念,但如果将隐喻的反事实属性归因于其主体,隐喻也可能被滥用。医学专业精神似乎正发生这种情况,它有时被简化为一种约定的可交付成果和谈判筹码。社会契约隐喻的不良属性可能正在阻碍人们理解和传授医学专业精神的努力。
尽管社会契约隐喻存在理论缺陷,但由于其据称与1847年《医学伦理法典》以及20世纪初常规(对抗疗法)医学的随后兴起有关联,它具有历史可信度。然而,记录并不支持这样一种观点,即1847年法典的预期目的是创建一份社会契约,或者说曾经出现过一份社会契约。另一种说法是契约确实出现了,但医生是糟糕的合作伙伴,这种说法既不能令人满意,也无法解释清楚。
就目前的使用情况而言,医学的社会契约隐喻存在严重的理论和历史缺陷。医学教育工作者应在讨论专业精神时摒弃这个狭隘且过度使用的隐喻。这样做,教育工作者和整个医学专业只会失去用取消社会契约来威胁自己的能力。作为回报,他们将为更复杂且富有成果地思考医学专业精神以及医学与社会的关系打开大门。