HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

TRACK to:

Family Medicine Updates: Paula Binder AAFP Unveils Bold New Attitude, Actions Ann Fam Med 2007; 5: 563 [Full text] [PDF]

TRACK: Submit a comment to this article

Electronic letters published:

Let's not confuse advocacy for our specialty with advocacy for patients

Elaine L. Reed   (29 November 2007)

Let's not confuse advocacy for our specialty with advocacy for patients 29 November 2007
Elaine L. Reed, Philadelphia, USA Family Physician, University of Pennsylvania Send response to journal: Re: Let's not confuse advocacy for our specialty with advocacy for patients	I'm pleased to note that the AAFP continues to actively strive to understand and meet its members' needs. I've often told residents and colleagues that the AAFP maintains my membership by serving my needs effectively, not by requesting service to the organization (though there are many opportunities for those who desire to do so). And I am glad to know that members want their voice heard and asked that the AAFP work toward that end. I think we need to move in this direction with deliberation and we must be honest with ourselves and others when engaging in our public advocacy. Meeting our goals as an organization may also benefit our patients and patients in general; I hope very much it does. But our priorities as a profession and specialty are not the same as those of patients. Many of the goals we advocate for--e.g., support for training in family medicine, support for family physicians in rural and other underserved settings-- serve a common good that benefits few of our current membership directly. But other causes, such as tort reform, ease our suffering more directly than most patients', to whom the downstream benefit would probably not be perceptible. And it could be argued that, were we to succeed in our efforts to increase reimbursement for primary care, the result would actually serve to further limit access to the underserved and, therefore, be counterproductive to public health. Often when I read statements released by physician groups tying their interests to the needs of patients, the connection rings false, and the patient benefit argument is thin. Family Medicine has a proud tradition of doing what is right rather than what is expeditious. Let us continue in that vein as we proceed down this next path we've chosen. Let us be honest about what we hope to accomplish with each advocated position, and about whom we hope to benefit. Competing interests:   None declared