Elements of professionalism: corporate and market principles

Given by an expectant mother. She is subjected to a battery of tests - medicine is using everything at its disposal. Genetic tests are also being carried out - eugenics is creeping into people's lives. The gynaecologist examines the mother regularly, but in the case of certain minor or major abnormalities, the geneticist is also involved. The results of machine tests are not conclusive. The gynaecologist says there is no cause for concern, the geneticist says that no possibility should be ruled out.

The patient, of course, has the right to know what is happening to her, and they would not want to question that right. Because she hears differing opinions and is not qualified to assess the results herself, she is left in doubt. This uncertainty naturally changes her mental state, making her more irritable, more anxious, more depressed. This is everyone's own problem, of course, but let's not forget that there is also a foetus for whose sake all this is happening, and whose state of mind is certainly affected by the mother's mental state.

What can we say about the story from a moral point of view?

If physicians see themselves as competing members of a society, then all is well. Each physician offers his own wares, the gynaecologist his vast experience, the geneticist his powerful instruments. The experience of both of them is enriched by the tests, and this can be legitimised by the public good. From the point of view of the patient (and who is the patient, really?), what is communicated to her can hardly be considered information, at least if information is understood as the removal of uncertainty. At the same time, her rights have not been violated. From a moral point of view, the ancient principle of commerce, 'caveat emptor', applies.

But if physicians saw themselves as a collective body, they would certainly consult each other first and only send agreed communications to the patient. The pool of experience would then also be enlarged. The patient's uncertainty would not be increased, the foetus would not be surrounded by the womb of an anxious woman, but the right of the mother as a persona to information would be violated. The caveat vendor principle would work, but personal freedoms would be infringed.

This is what institutions do...