Kevin Asp
Page 1
02/26/97
Essay # 1
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
Page 2
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 sentence of paragraph five,
page 63, Gorman
writes " carpal tunnel syndrome in people who write a lot of trash about
ethics and
responsibility".
With this Post Hoc, Gorman is successful in revealing a hidden truth. Gorman is
suggesting that
some physicians feel they need not acknowledge ethics and responsibilities
associated with
their position.
Willfully presenting it with such a tone the reader will not and cannot
sympathize with the
writer. Again,
further supporting the thesis.
Towards the end of the essay, Gorman has
ruled out so many possible candidates for treatment, the
physicians
themselves will be left with little clientele. The argument is so ridiculous,
it turns full circle
and defeats
itself.
In Gorman's conclusion it is self evident
what's being said is that medicine is not just a business and
cannot be treated
as if it were. It is much more than nine to five and making a buck.
Unfortunately some
physicians may
have forgotten this for the moment. Stockbrokers are not required to take a
Hippocratic
Oath, and are
therefore not bound to the same ethical responsibilities as physicians.
The essay did not follow a classical
structure, but was none the less effective. Rhetorical comments and
questions were
abundant, and the conclusion was cleverly used as a concession. Who needs
structure in an
essay. Really.
How dumb can you get?
No comments:
Post a Comment