Isn’t Medicine Supposed to be between the Patient and the Doctor?
By Susan L. Rosenbluth
On Monday, May 18, President Donald Trump told the American people he has been taking the drug hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc prophylactically against COVID-19. His announcement set off a firestorm, with pundits on the left and right criticizing him.
But why should this be? For many years, the mantra on abortion has been that the decision on how to proceed is “between the patient and her doctor.” Now that the subject is a nasty virus, why is the decision on how to proceed no longer “between patient and doctor?”
The patient, in this case, Mr. Trump, consulted his doctor about the drug hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc. The doctor, who is familiar with his patient’s heart, evidently agreed it was something he could safely prescribe for Mr. Trump.
Therefore, the patient, in consultation with his doctor, is taking this drug, a medication which many patients swear is what cured them; a drug many doctors say is extremely helpful if taken at the beginning of the disease (but doesn’t help at all in later stages); a drug which other doctors do not prescribe at all.
If Mr. Trump’s doctor had said no, the patient would either have listened to him or would have found another doctor—something patients do every day when they no longer like something about their physician. Why is this a problem?
The drug is not available over the counter; it requires a prescription. If people want to take it in the same fashion as the President, they will consult their physicians. If the physician says yes, the patient will get the drug. If the physician says no, the patient will either agree not to take it or will find another physician who will prescribe it.
Bottom line: if abortion is between a doctor and the patient, then the decision on whether to take hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc is between a doctor and the patient. Period. You can’t have it both ways, and politics, everyone should agree, has no role in medicine.