Department of Public Health, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nationalestraat 155, B-2000, Antwerp, Belgium.
Office de la Naissance et de l'Enfance, French Community of Belgium, Chaussée de Charleroi 95, B-1060, Brussels, Belgium.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Dec 9;20(Suppl 2):1068. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05885-0.
Revisiting professionalism, both as a medical ideal and educational topic, this paper asks whether, in the rise of artificial intelligence, healthcare commoditisation and environmental challenges, a rationale exists for merging clinical and public health practices. To optimize doctors' impact on community health, clinicians should introduce public health thinking and action into clinical practice, above and beyond controlling nosocomial infections and iatrogenesis. However, in the interest of effectiveness they should do everything possible to personalise care delivery. To solve this paradox, we explore why it is necessary for the boundaries between medicine and public health to be blurred.
Proceeding sequentially, we derive standards for medical professionalism from care quality criteria, neo-Hippocratic ethics, public health concepts, and policy outcomes. Thereby, we formulate benchmarks for health care management and apply them to policy evaluation. During this process we justify the social, professional - and by implication, non-commercial, non-industrial - mission of healthcare financing and policies. The complexity of ethical, person-centred, biopsychosocial practice requires a human interface between suffering, health risks and their therapeutic solution - and thus legitimises the medical profession's existence. Consequently, the universal human right to healthcare is a right to access professionally delivered care. Its enforcement requires significant updating of the existing medical culture, and not just in respect of the man/machine interface. This will allow physicians to focus on what artificial intelligence cannot do, or not do well. These duties should become the touchstone of their practice, knowledge and ethics. Artificial intelligence must support medical professionalism, not determine it. Because physicians need sufficient autonomy to exercise professional judgement, medical ethics will conflict with attempts to introduce clinical standardisation as a managerial paradigm, which is what happens when industrial-style management is applied to healthcare.
Public healthcare financing and policy ought to support medical professionalism, alongside integrated clinical and public health practice, and its management. Publicly-financed health management should actively promote ethics in publicly- oriented services. Commercialised healthcare is antithetical to ethical medical, and to clinical / public health practice integration. To lobby governments effectively, physicians need to appreciate the political economy of care.
重新审视专业精神,无论是作为医学理想还是教育主题,本文探讨了在人工智能兴起、医疗保健商品化和环境挑战的背景下,是否有理由将临床和公共卫生实践结合起来。为了优化医生对社区健康的影响,临床医生应该将公共卫生思维和行动引入临床实践,超越控制医院感染和医源性疾病。然而,为了提高效率,他们应该尽一切可能实现个性化护理。为了解决这个矛盾,我们探讨了为什么有必要模糊医学和公共卫生之间的界限。
依次从医疗质量标准、新希波克拉底伦理、公共卫生概念和政策成果中推导出医学专业精神的标准。由此,我们为医疗保健管理制定了基准,并将其应用于政策评估。在这个过程中,我们为医疗保健融资和政策的社会、专业——以及隐含的非商业、非工业——使命提供了依据。伦理、以人为本、生物心理社会实践的复杂性需要在痛苦、健康风险及其治疗解决方案之间建立一个人际界面——从而使医疗专业的存在合法化。因此,普遍的人类获得医疗保健的权利是获得专业提供的医疗保健的权利。执行这一权利需要对现有医疗文化进行重大更新,而不仅仅是在人与机器的接口方面。这将使医生能够专注于人工智能无法或不能很好地完成的工作。这些职责应该成为他们实践、知识和道德的试金石。人工智能必须支持医学专业精神,而不是决定它。因为医生需要足够的自主权来行使专业判断,所以医学伦理将与将临床标准化作为管理范式的尝试相冲突,而这正是将工业风格的管理应用于医疗保健时发生的情况。
公共医疗保健融资和政策应该支持医学专业精神,同时支持临床和公共卫生实践及其管理。公共资助的卫生管理应该积极促进面向公众服务的道德规范。商业化的医疗保健与伦理医学以及临床/公共卫生实践的整合是对立的。为了有效地游说政府,医生需要了解医疗保健的政治经济学。