A Critical Analysis Of the Doctor Wont See You Now :: essays research papers

A Critical Analysis of "The Doctor Won't See You Now" Initially, James Gorman appears to be stating that physicians should not be ethically obligated to treat each and every "slob" that seeks treatment. The title of the essay, and the sarcastic tone, give evidence that the thesis is quite the contrary. Gorman does identify an alarming trend of physicians looking through a cynical eye with an example of a survey by the American Medical Association, published November, 1991. " Thirty percent of doctors surveyed said they felt no ethical responsibilities to treat AIDS patients" (page 62). This seems to set the tone of disgust for such physicians. Gorman further condemns such physicians by reminding the reader "doctoring is a profession, a calling requiring commitment and integrity" (page 63). Gorman confirms his argument with the first of many disenchanted views. Making a comparison that " old people who are on their way out anyway" (page 62) are responsible for rising health care costs. Gorman then becomes almost offensive when he suggests some AIDS patients deserve their predicament and others don't. At this point, the reader sees that Gorman is being very sarcastic and bitter towards physicians who mare share this view. In paragraph three, Gorman attempts to make an analogy between other professions and related obligations. In essence, the analogy equates the amount of money and personal taste one may have, with the level of care and/or attention one deserves. The analogy appears to be very inappropriate at first, however, this may be exactly what Gorman is trying to point out, making the reader more sympathetic to the thesis. Gorman begins to touch on a sound idea of preventative medicine in paragraph four, page 62, where he writes "... the medical profession is finally beginning to see that patients have a responsibility for their own health". The credibility of the previous statement is destroyed when Gorman goes on to make a false analogy, comparing doctors with small business, and suggests that their is no difference between the two fields. Gorman suggest that, like in small business, doctors should eliminate the "riffraff" in their establishments. Unfortunately, the definition of riffraff is never revealed. Gorman goes on further to suggest which diseases or ailments should not be treated without any reason except personal bias. The sarcastic tone is turned up a notch on the proverbial dial from ten to eleven. Making a hasty generalization would usually destroy credibility on an issue, but used with the tone and thesis of this essay, it actually supports Gorman's point. Gorman specifies carpal tunnel syndrome as a deserved ailment. In the last