A Critical Analysis of "The Doctor Won't See You Now"
A Critical Analysis of "The Doctor Won't See You Now"
Kevin Asp 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
Kevin Asp 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