Whereas data per se may be objective, their application to clinical care by the experts who formulate guidelines is not.
This truth, that evidence-based practice codified in clinical guidelines has an inescapable subjective core, is highlighted by the fact that working with the same scientific data, different groups of experts write different guidelines for conditions as common as hypertension and elevated cholesterol levels The specified cutoffs for treatment or no treatment, testing or no testing, the weighing of risk versus benefit — all necessarily reflect the values and preferences of the experts who write the recommendations.
Marketplace and industrial terms may be useful to economists, but this vocabulary should not redefine our profession.
“Customer,” “consumer,” and “provider” are words that do not belong in teaching rounds and the clinic.
“Provider” also signals that care is fundamentally a prepackaged commodity on a shelf that is “provided” to the “consumer,” rather than something personalized and dynamic, crafted by skilled professionals and tailored to the individual patient.
Business is geared toward the bottom line: making money.
And these values and preferences are subjective, not scientific.
Despite the lip service paid to “patient-centered care” by the forces promulgating the new language of medicine, their discourse shifts the focus from the good of the individual to the exigencies of the system and its costs.There is no hint of the role of doctor as teacher with special knowledge to help the patient understand the reasons for his or her malady and the possible ways of remedying it, no honoring of the work of the nurse as a nurturer with unique expertise whose close care is essential to healing.