User login
In the lead-up to the November general election, five major physicians’ and surgeons’ groups put lawmakers on notice, politely saying "get your noses out of our clinical business."
Leaders from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Surgeons penned a joint editorial published Oct. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2012; 367:1557-9 [doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1209858]).
They objected specifically to four kinds of what they termed "inappropriate legislative interference." Specifically, they called out federal and state legislators for:
• Attempting to prohibit discussions of risk factors that might affect the health of patients and families (gun ownership counseling).
• Requiring discussion of information and practices that might not be necessary at the time, based on the doctor’s clinical judgment (end-of-life counseling).
• Requiring physicians to provide tests or interventions that are not supported by evidence (preabortion ultrasound)
• Limiting information doctors can provide to their patients (chemicals used in "fracking").
Details on the measures that so irked physicians can be read on the journal’s website.
While it’s not uncommon for these groups to band together for advocacy purposes, their NEJM editorial was particularly pointed in its message to lawmakers and seemed designed to put elected leaders on notice that doctors are displeased with the meddling.
The question remains whether lawmakers will register the displeasure.
In the lead-up to the November general election, five major physicians’ and surgeons’ groups put lawmakers on notice, politely saying "get your noses out of our clinical business."
Leaders from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Surgeons penned a joint editorial published Oct. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2012; 367:1557-9 [doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1209858]).
They objected specifically to four kinds of what they termed "inappropriate legislative interference." Specifically, they called out federal and state legislators for:
• Attempting to prohibit discussions of risk factors that might affect the health of patients and families (gun ownership counseling).
• Requiring discussion of information and practices that might not be necessary at the time, based on the doctor’s clinical judgment (end-of-life counseling).
• Requiring physicians to provide tests or interventions that are not supported by evidence (preabortion ultrasound)
• Limiting information doctors can provide to their patients (chemicals used in "fracking").
Details on the measures that so irked physicians can be read on the journal’s website.
While it’s not uncommon for these groups to band together for advocacy purposes, their NEJM editorial was particularly pointed in its message to lawmakers and seemed designed to put elected leaders on notice that doctors are displeased with the meddling.
The question remains whether lawmakers will register the displeasure.
In the lead-up to the November general election, five major physicians’ and surgeons’ groups put lawmakers on notice, politely saying "get your noses out of our clinical business."
Leaders from the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American College of Surgeons penned a joint editorial published Oct. 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine (2012; 367:1557-9 [doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1209858]).
They objected specifically to four kinds of what they termed "inappropriate legislative interference." Specifically, they called out federal and state legislators for:
• Attempting to prohibit discussions of risk factors that might affect the health of patients and families (gun ownership counseling).
• Requiring discussion of information and practices that might not be necessary at the time, based on the doctor’s clinical judgment (end-of-life counseling).
• Requiring physicians to provide tests or interventions that are not supported by evidence (preabortion ultrasound)
• Limiting information doctors can provide to their patients (chemicals used in "fracking").
Details on the measures that so irked physicians can be read on the journal’s website.
While it’s not uncommon for these groups to band together for advocacy purposes, their NEJM editorial was particularly pointed in its message to lawmakers and seemed designed to put elected leaders on notice that doctors are displeased with the meddling.
The question remains whether lawmakers will register the displeasure.
