There was an interesting article by Paul Krugman in the NY Times today about the current use of the phrase "health care consumers," instead of patients. As a member of the health care profession, I wholeheartedly agree with him. As I believe I have noted here before, I hate it, for example, when professionals call their patients "clients" or "customers." I believe "patient" has a more intimate meaning about the relationship between the health care provider and patient. Krugman says:

quote:

The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car — and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.

What do you think?

I don't like the modern usage either.
The same thing happens in education. The words pupil and student are increasingly replaced with the bland and generic "customer".
I've even heard, though I'm not sure of the reliability of my source, that in prison, "prisoner" is sometimes similarly replaced with "customer" or "client".

And by coincidence Larry Ferlazzo, possibly the net's most prolific finder of useful EFL stuff, has seen, and commented on, the same article.

I find it very annoying as well. I suppose the original aim was to remove the suggestion that the user of services is somehow subservient to the system, and suggest a more professional relationship between the service provider and the user. But to me it seems to reduce everyone to the level of customers in a supermarket.

It shows they are more interested in profit than care.

quote:

And by coincidence Larry Ferlazzo, possibly the net's most prolific finder of useful EFL stuff, has seen, and commented on, the same article.

Interesting link. Yes, the same holds for students, and we in the US are definitely thinking of them only as "customers," particularly our proprietary programs.

It beats, "victims," but not by much.

Sadly the shoe ['consumers'] fits so we must wear it. Medical ethics went out the window the day we started privatizing medical research by shifting the bulk of it to pharmaceutical companies. We started seeing tv commercials for prescription medicine in the '80's I think.. and about the same time, ads for lawyers.. sic transit legal ethics. I worked for an engineering co at the time, another field in which professionalism was taken very seriously. It was a pretty big deal in the mid-70's when Bechtel decided it was OK to add a color to their previously all-black logo! ['too commercial!']

quote:

Medical ethics went out the window the day we started privatizing medical research by shifting the bulk of it to pharmaceutical companies.

Ah...my loyalty streak is coming out.

Bethree, many pharmaceutical studies are supported by NIH grants, though the drug companies do fund some of them. I am not sure what that percentage is, but I'll try to find out. I do know that huge amounts of taxpayers' money goes to drug research, which must be ethically and rigorously conducted in order to get funding. Furthermore, any research involving human subjects must go through stringent Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews, which are monitored throughout the conduct of the study.

Surely medical ethics, just as ethics in any profession or occupation, is not perfect. But, I've got to say, it's pretty darn good.

You're right Kalleh I overstated. Medical ethics did not go 'out the window', but I feel there has been a steady move toward privatization over 30 yrs, which inevitably bends the professional equation toward commercialism. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

Here in the pharmaceutical belt we are very aware of the successes, and there are many beneficial results. There has also been a steady trickle of info revealing frauds as companies attempt to turn a profit on duds.

Sat's NYT had an article which shows that the profession is managing to make some lemonade out of the lemon of losing the traditional dr/patient relationship.

Here is another slant on using the term 'medical consumer' instead of 'patient', based on our family's nightmarish couple of years trying to beat a complex of poorly-understood diseases. Commercial terminology can help you keep your chin up and continue the search. It gives you at least the illusion of a modicum of control, where calling yourself a 'patient' can just make you feel weak.

To me, the term, "consumer" suggests mindlessness.
One might as well be a vacuum cleaner (Hoover to you Brits). That certainly fits in the area of food, wherein we are cajoled into buying "fast food," then sold pharmaceuticals to combat the ills of rapid ingestion of inferior food. Given the move in medicine towards "production line" visits, a customer of a medical practitioner no longer can develop a personal, human relationship with said provider.

BTW, Bethree5, good to see you here again!

quote:

Here is another slant on using the term 'medical consumer' instead of 'patient', based on our family's nightmarish couple of years trying to beat a complex of poorly-understood diseases. Commercial terminology can help you keep your chin up and continue the search. It gives you at least the illusion of a modicum of control, where calling yourself a 'patient' can just make you feel weak.

That was a nice article, Bethree. They didn't, however, mention nurse practitioners, who spend time with patients like family practitioners do. Nurse practitioners are not a disappearing breed at all. They are indeed flourishing, particularly in smaller communities or rural areas. Maybe he should sell his practice to a nurse practitioner.

Sorry about your nightmarish couple of years, Bethree. Something like that will do it for families.

Related to the word "patient," you are right. Some people don't like it because it means "weak" or "vulnerable" to them. However, to me it means that intimate relationship with your health care provider, whereas "client" or "customer" means a stilted relationship, based on cost.