The Escape from Corporation.
Throughout the book and up and until that point Paul Starr had maintained a neutral tone with regards to physicians, their professional authorities, and their achievements in that respect, but in this chapter Starr’s observations seemed to take on a more disapproving tone.
We can see at one point how Starr paints a picture of physicians as a self-serving, almost ‘whiny’, group where he states that they “have a dislike for socialized medicine…and a distaste for corporate capitalism.” On page 205, he explains how doctors withheld medical records in order to prevent the hospital associations from reducing unnecessary procedures--now he has them sounding like the mob!! While this may very well have happened, I am just curious to the extent and prevalence of such unethical (almost criminal) behavior. He also asserts that the Mayos “aimlessly” created group practice-with no ideological motives or goals in mind. In a sense, Starr is denying that doctors successfully created working corporate models of their own.
It seems as though Starr is subliminally suggesting that physicians “escaped” from corporation because of an inherent character flaw; they are a power-hungry, money-hoarding, self-serving bunch who does not want to be regulated or controlled by any outsiders.
The way Paul Starr argues for the case of capitalism not favoring medicine over public health, it becomes clear that he is not being very objective in this chapter. He states that “it is difficult to see why capitalism… would have benefited by favoring medical care over public health.” I find this statement hard to fathom. I had to read it twice. Stop. Then read it again before I burst out laughing! Really? What about Big Pharma? Keep in mind that this statement is not made in reference to any particular time period; it is a general statement which stems from Paul Starr’s ideology. Even if Starr is a full-fledged capitalist, he still should have evaluated the case objectively before issuing such qualifying statements. Ignoring the effects of pharmaceutical companies and lobbying efforts on therapeutic medicine and public health is a tad dogmatic, in my opinion.
The intricate interplay between research and development, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians made medical practice what it is today-- a practice aimed at symptomatic management. This warrants examination, especially by a scholar like Starr, because, after all, Big Pharma operates, and is shielded by, capitalism.
We can see at one point how Starr paints a picture of physicians as a self-serving, almost ‘whiny’, group where he states that they “have a dislike for socialized medicine…and a distaste for corporate capitalism.” On page 205, he explains how doctors withheld medical records in order to prevent the hospital associations from reducing unnecessary procedures--now he has them sounding like the mob!! While this may very well have happened, I am just curious to the extent and prevalence of such unethical (almost criminal) behavior. He also asserts that the Mayos “aimlessly” created group practice-with no ideological motives or goals in mind. In a sense, Starr is denying that doctors successfully created working corporate models of their own.
It seems as though Starr is subliminally suggesting that physicians “escaped” from corporation because of an inherent character flaw; they are a power-hungry, money-hoarding, self-serving bunch who does not want to be regulated or controlled by any outsiders.
The way Paul Starr argues for the case of capitalism not favoring medicine over public health, it becomes clear that he is not being very objective in this chapter. He states that “it is difficult to see why capitalism… would have benefited by favoring medical care over public health.” I find this statement hard to fathom. I had to read it twice. Stop. Then read it again before I burst out laughing! Really? What about Big Pharma? Keep in mind that this statement is not made in reference to any particular time period; it is a general statement which stems from Paul Starr’s ideology. Even if Starr is a full-fledged capitalist, he still should have evaluated the case objectively before issuing such qualifying statements. Ignoring the effects of pharmaceutical companies and lobbying efforts on therapeutic medicine and public health is a tad dogmatic, in my opinion.
The intricate interplay between research and development, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians made medical practice what it is today-- a practice aimed at symptomatic management. This warrants examination, especially by a scholar like Starr, because, after all, Big Pharma operates, and is shielded by, capitalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment