“There are too many diagnoses but a dearth of solutions.” It’s a phrase that gets repeated over and over In different areas of this distressed Argentine reality. There is a shocking logical void among our political leaders. Irresponsible governance and political marketing without content hold hostage a society that is tired of the chronic stress of living in crippling uncertainty.
Medicine and politics have many aspects in common: they must diagnose and apply “treatment”; Knowing how to live with uncertainty and face multifactorial problems. Politics often uses medical expressions, but is governed by completely different rules. Announcements from political leaders, at all levels and in all hues, are usually calculated exaggerated categorical diagnoses or, worse, prepackaged “couch” responses that seek only a short-term media effect.
In politics, one usually does not state clearly what treatment they propose., and if one does (partially), they do not explain how they would address the possible side effects of the treatment they are proposing. In medicine, we constantly take into account the side effects and/or adverse effects of what we prescribe, and before surgery we explain our therapeutic proposal, its potential risks and alternative treatments.
Another aspect to highlight is that practically no politician explains to us in which country it was implemented The “treatment” it proposes and, if any such antecedent, what results were obtained from that treatment. It is important to consider the consequences in the short and long term. The 1990s saw a true revolution in decision-making strategies in medicine. That new paradigm was called evidence-based medicine (EBM). It is a term coined by Gordon Guyett in 1991; It is defined as the use of the best available scientific evidence to make decisions about patients. In other words, decision making – unlike many political decisions – results from systematic reviews of controlled and randomized scientific papers in medicine, as promoted by Cochrane, a British epidemiologist at the University of Oxford.
At the same time, conclusion These studies must then be contextualized to each particular patient and each region in which the doctor works, considering the patient’s opinion (patient autonomy) and their socio-cultural patterns. An analogy for politics would be that not every external model can be “copy and paste” in our socio-cultural context.
Medicine moved from a patriarchal, vertical medical model to a more horizontal one., which respects the autonomy of the patient. In the first model, it was assumed that the doctor acted “as a good family man”, in accordance with the bioethical principle of beneficence. The doctor, having decided on the basis of his experience, what should be done, sent the patient to a passive position.
continues with us Logical equivalence between politics and medicine, which has transcended the patriarchal medical model, can be understood as based on political systems that act as society’s “good parents” and decide in private what is best for their governance. what is good In these systems, the people (patients) accept whatever decision the leader makes without criticism.
Closed ideologies lose perspective to the status quo and critical thinking, Not everything is black or white, except for some core values (freedom or absence of freedom, republic or absence of a republic). Nuances prevail in life. This also has parallels in medicine, in that we must be open to debate of ideas and foundations that often change our minds, for example, regarding the therapeutic approach to many diseases. Doctors are trained to listen to those who think differently. This is how we do it in our hospital centers, at conferences for each specialty, and in our daily practice. What we often see in politics is the disqualification and, if possible, the quashing of those who think differently.
It is very important to take care of the integrity and stability of functions in therapy Of the creature We call this homeostasis (set of self-regulating phenomena). In politics, we have long witnessed the degeneration of controlling agencies. In medicine, there are many ethical theories and debates that shape our conduct. A fundamental principle of medicine is the famous Latin locution primam non nocere (the first thing to do is to do no harm). This principle should be considered before implementing any political decision. In the field of medicine we are also guided by a statement which should be an axiom in the political field: “Whatever can be done is not necessary”. In our medical decisions we consider many factors in decision making analysis before applying treatment. There are results that have been shown to be positive in new treatments but do not withstand critical analysis of their clinical significance.
it refers to us, in political plane, for proposals for “experiments”, for example, “Dynamite” structures. These are initiatives that have impact because of their audacity, but which do not support a detailed analysis of their consequences and how to address the proximate collateral damage.
Another medical expression used in politics arises when “major surgery” is proposed., In medicine, all major surgeries require the patient to be kept in intensive care in the postoperative period. This is not always considered in politics. It does not seem appropriate to do major surgery on an outpatient basis. The expression used in both areas is “bad”. Execution, It is very clear that it does not produce the same results as medicine in politics. Professional liability lawsuits produce significant consequences for doctors, both criminal and civil.
bad in politics Execution does not produce results. Characters who have repeatedly failed when it was their turn to manage an area are magically “recycled” and reappear in the form of a phoenix bird. There is no social condemnation either. The same is true of devotion to truth. With post-truth as a means of political communication, lying pays off and does not produce major results. Just as patient safety requires medicines to be held to high quality standards, we citizens must be more demanding with our politicians in order to one day receive a quality election proposal. This civic demand will result in a quality public education. Without this input (education) or with that input markedly deteriorating, we will be condemned to a chronic vicious cycle in which everything will continue to slide down, as our politicians continue to emanate from an increasingly less demanding society, and this will send us Past times in which “colored mirrors” were bought. Félix Lonigro expresses the following at the end of an excellent article (La Nación, April 26, 2023): “In this case, it is urgently needed [la cultura cívica] that a new Sarmiento appears”.
This text is not an anti-political proclamation. quite the opposite, It is an expression of the desire for the best possible political quality. It is also an expression of the political orphanhood that many Argentinians feel, discouraged and weary of voting for the lesser evil. It is clear that the future of individual projects and collective dreams of an Argentine society in intensive care will depend on the quality of the “medical” decisions of our politicians.
