‘Humanitarian’ move by doctors

THE EDITOR: It was interesting to see a group of young doctors recently striving to be “humanitarian” in their approach to the profession in keeping with the Hippocratic Oath.

This open stance on the issue is relatively new for medicine has always been hallowed ground when the visit to the doctor often times would have been “intimidating” in so many ways.

First, there would have been the idea of being “doctor” arising generally out of the domain of the well-to-do and privileged having the means to go “abroad” as much as law would have been in the old days, with the physician being in a place poles apart from the average patient.

This sense of distance would have played itself out across the table with the guy in the white suit and horn-rimmed glasses, complete with stethoscope, talking down to the patient, informing and prescribing, with the patient meekly succumbing.

No questions asked because you didn’t dare, and equally remote would have been the idea of a second opinion, not to mention the exorbitant fees expected for the privilege.

There may have been exceptions to this pattern of behaviour, but it is not an exaggeration to suggest that the doctor of old was less than “humanitarian” in the sense that these young doctors are hoping to propagate.

And maybe now the situation is more amenable. The average patient is now much more educated and open and is ready to engage the doctor re his condition. One may take this for granted but the idea of doctor and patient in mutual exchange over the course to follow is as revolutionary as you can get.

Also the average doctor of today is less from a perceived hallowed place as previously, for with medicine available at the local university and with young people from all levels of the society being able to access this once privileged ground through scholarships and the like, the “doctor” seems to have touched ground for all the people to reach without fear or favour.

This is not to say that some of the old evils of privileged medical knowledge and unaffordable fees do not exist, although access to more reliable public health has had a mitigating effect.

But this move by the young doctors to be more “humanitarian,” which essentially would mean entering into a mutually beneficial relationship with the patient and possibly some relief in terms of exorbitant fees, is something to be welcomed, and should be a pattern worthy of emulation by like professions.

DR ERROL BENJAMIN

via e-mail