via Psychiatric News Alert
"The 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association House of Delegates begins tomorrow in Chicago. The House of Delegates is the policy-making body of the AMA, bringing together an inclusive group of physicians and medical students representing every state and specialty. More than 200 policy proposals will be considered on emerging issues in science, ethics, government, public health and business. In addition, a number of APA member psychiatrists are running for elective office at the meeting, including Jeremy Lazarus, M.D., currently the Speaker of the House, who is running unopposed for President of the AMA."
from psychiatryonline.org
"In addition to health system, Medicare payment, and liability reform, other items on the AMA agenda will be patient-safety initiatives, evidence-based medicine and quality metrics, promotion of healthy lifestyles and preventive care, and increasing AMA membership." (emphasis mine)
from psychiatryonline.org
"In addition to health system, Medicare payment, and liability reform, other items on the AMA agenda will be patient-safety initiatives, evidence-based medicine and quality metrics, promotion of healthy lifestyles and preventive care, and increasing AMA membership." (emphasis mine)
This is disheartening...How the hell is it possible for a psychiatrist to run unopposed for a position in an organization that claims patient safety and evidence-based medicine are priorities---it is apparent to me that in the REAL WORLD (where I live) psychiatry has very little actual experience with either one. Indeed, there is very little evidence that members of the APA know how to define "safe and effective treatment." Some do not even think a patient's treatment experience, i.e. the patient's perspective, is even relevant! Specifically, no person can determine for another person what is "tolerable" or not when it comes to the negative effects of psychotropic drugs! A patient's perception is always relevant, so is a person's culture, philosophy, and their life experiences. What a person thinks may have caused their problems, is important, even if a professional doesn't "agree" or think thei patient's explanation has any validity; it is anathema to human relationships in general, and to "therapeutic" relationships inparticular, to discount, minimize or dismiss the other person's views as not important! Doing so invalidates a person, signifying they are "less than"worthy of respect or having any postive regard for. In all reality, when the same type of treatment occurs between family members or co-habitants, in their homes, it's called "domestic abuse;" "bullying" when it's done at school, at work or in another social environment...
Why do you think psychiatrists are concerned about liability reform?
I bet it's not to protect their patients...
No comments:
Post a Comment