The conflict and paradox of medical practice and corporate medicine

Ethics in cardiovascular medicine. Task Force II: The relation of cardiovascular specialists to patients, other physicians and physician-owned organizations

1. The American College of Cardiology acknowledges the continuum of changing societal, medical and economic perspectives affecting traditional medical ethics. Primacy of patient responsibility remains paramount to the cardiovascular specialist who at the same time should participate in the development of broader societal programs. 2. Medical decisions should be freely and jointly formulated by the patient and the cardiovascular specialist with appropriate sensitivity to such matters as mental competence, pertinent medical information and standards of care, sufficient time for contemplation, informed consent, patient right of refusal, physician right to refuse to provide inappropriate care and the right of patient, physician or third party payer to seek consultation or additional opinions. 3. The cardiovascular specialist should make a special effort to clarify and document patient preferences regarding end-of-life treatment through some form of advance directive. 4. The cardiovascular specialist bears a moral obligation to provide medical care to any patient who is HIV positive or has AIDS. 5. A conflict of interest occurs when a cardiovascular specialist places personal or financial interest ahead of the welfare and health of a patient. Professional accountability should be established through local or regional peer review. 6. The American College of Cardiology encourages and supports a renewed dedication to the principles of medical ethics, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular specialists are encouraged to participate in the promulgation of medical ethics by teaching and by example, individually and with others.