http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7338/624
BMJ 2002;324:624-625 ( 16 March )
Editorials
Declining altruism in medicine
Understanding medical altruism is important in workforce
planning
Altruism, the performance of cooperative unselfish acts beneficial to others,
has been studied in several medical contexts, including the donation
of organs and genetic material and patients' participation in
potentially hazardous experiments and trials.1
Physicians' altruism towards their patients and others has been
less well studied and is implicit, rather than explicit, in statements
about medical professional values and attitudes. Altruism is,
however, embodied in many cultural stereotypes of the "good doctor,"
such as John Berger's country practitioner in A Fortunate Man.2
Altruistic behaviour by physicians might include, for example, continuing to
work or providing informal medical advice outside contracted hours,
giving free treatment to poor patients in fee for service healthcare
systems, and a general willingness to go the extra mile in
professional activities. There is much evidence that many doctors
work beyond their contracted hours, but there is also a growing
feeling that altruism in medicine, if not dying, is at least
declining.
This might be expressed, for example, in the anaesthetist's unwillingness to
accept a final case on the list because the operation would run
beyond the limit of the contracted session; in the general decline in
home visiting rates by general practitioners; or in the recent
explicit choices now made by young doctors in balancing professional
and domestic commitments. Generation X is making a cool appraisal of
the costs and benefits of a medical career.
Explaining the emergence and maintenance of altruistic and cooperative social
behaviour has been a longstanding problem in the biological and
social sciences, and there is currently intense debate about the
determinants of human nature. Darwin recognised altruism as a
particular difficulty for his evolutionary concept, which was based
on competition and the struggle for existence. The widely accepted
solution to this problem is the model of kin selection, in which
cooperation is more likely to develop among genetically related
individuals and which now forms part of the selfish gene view of
natural selection.3-4 Cooperative behaviour,
however, is likely to be sustained only when there is either direct
or indirect reciprocity, in which benevolence to one individual
increases the chances of receiving help directly in return or
indirectly from others.5 Experiments involving game
theory and computer simulations of these behaviours within
populations have confirmed the importance of reciprocity6
in sustaining altruism, but because reproductive success is often
used as an outcome measure, these results should be applied with
caution to medical populations.
It is possible to think of a number of ways in which reciprocity might
sustain medical altruism. The first of these is the support and
assistance rendered to doctors working under difficult circumstances.
Many readers will be old enough to remember the miraculous appearance
of coffee and sandwiches on hospital wards in the small hours of a
long weekend on call, and the comforts of the doctors' mess that
mitigated some of the miseries of frequent resident duties. Secondly,
doctors have enjoyed for many years a level of social esteem accorded
to few other professions. In Captain Corelli's Mandolin,7
Dr Iannis derived his authority in the kapheneion (coffee house) from
the experience of a life in medical practice, which also equipped him
to act as a counsellor in matters of love and war. Thirdly, doctors
have traditionally enjoyed material and financial security, which
perhaps now is beginning to compare unfavourably with that in other
career opportunities.
At a time of unprecedented mistrust between the medical profession, the
public, and the media, understanding the roots of altruistic
behaviour in medicine is critical. The unquestioning status
traditionally accorded to healers in times of aetiological ignorance
and therapeutic impotence has given way to a more sceptical and often
disparaging view of doctors, now in possession of unparalleled
therapeutic capabilities. Pathetic gratitude for ineffective medical
interventions has been replaced by escalating demands and expectations,
often fuelled by media hyperbole and an enduring public appetite
for miracles. The critical role of an open and honest dialogue
between doctors and patients has been emphasised in this journal,8
but this can be difficult to achieve as medicine becomes more
complex, fragmented, episodic, and impersonal.
Understanding medical altruism is also likely to be important in workforce
planning particularly if, as in the UK National Health Service,
recruitment and retention of medical and nursing staff are
problematic. It may well be that the conditions that encourage
clinicians to join and stay in their posts are not dissimilar to
those that are needed for the development of altruistic behaviours.
If it is also true that the maintenance of these behaviours depends
on the recognition of individuals with similar characteristics
clinical
and professional values
and
on the expectation of reciprocity, then there is a strong message
here for managers and policy makers. Disenfranchisement and
disengagement are dimensions of demoralisation and burnout, a
constant threat to physicians' health.9 Workforce
planning needs to be more than a numbers game and must pay explicit
attention to the working conditions, incentives, and rewards provided
for all healthcare workers.
Roger Jones, Wolfson professor of general practice.
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Guy's, King's College and St
Thomas's Hospitals Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, London SE11 6SP
roger.jones@kcl.ac.uk
| 1. |
Seelig BJ, Dobelle WH. Altruism and the volunteer:
psychological benefits from participating as a research subject. ASAT0
2001; 47: 3-5.
|
| 2. |
Berger J. A fortunate man. Vintage Books: London.,
1997. |
| 3. |
Agrawal AF. Kin recognition and the evolution of altruism.
Proc Roy Soc Lond 2001; 268: 1099-1104[Medline].
|
| 4. |
Dawkins R. The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990. |
| 5. |
Axelrod R, Hamilton WD. The evolution of co-operation.
Science 1981; 211: 1390-1396[Medline].
|
| 6. |
Sigmund K, Nowak MA. Tides of tolerance. Nature
2001; 414: 403-405[Medline].
|
| 7. |
De Bernières L. Captain Corelli's mandolin. London:
Martin Secker and Warburg, 1994. |
| 8. |
Smith R. Why are doctors so unhappy? BMJ 2001; 322:
1073-1074[Full
Text].
|
| 9. |
Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu
Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 397-422[Abstract/Full
Text].
|
© BMJ 2002
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Altruism is not equal to self sacrifice
- Workman Stephen
- bmj.com, 15 Mar 2002
[Full text]
- Altruism on the decline
- Bernard Negus
- bmj.com, 15 Mar 2002
[Full text]
Other related articles in BMJ:
- EDITOR'S CHOICE
Informed compliance.
- BMJ 2002 324: 0.
[Full text]
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.