• Richard L Cruess and Sylvia R Cruess.
• From the Institute for Health Sciences Education, Lady Meredith House, McGill University, Quebec, Canada. richard.cruess@mcgill.ca.
• J Am Board Fam Med. 2020 Sep 1; 33 (Suppl): S50-S56.

AbstractWhile medicine's roots lie deep in antiquity, the modern professions only arose in the middle of the 19th century after which early social scientists examined the nature of professionalism. The relationship between medicine and society received less attention until profound changes occurred in the structure and financing of health care, leading to a perception that medicine's professionalism was being threatened. Starr in 1984 proposed that the relationship was contractual with expectations and obligations on both sides. Other observers refined the concept, believing that the historic term, "social contract," could be applied to the relationship, a concept with which many agree. There was general agreement that society used the concept of the profession to organize the delivery of essential services that it required, including health care. Under the terms of the contract, the medical profession was given financial and nonfinancial rewards, autonomy, and the privilege of self regulation on the understanding that it would be trustworthy, assure the competence of its members, and be devoted to the public good. In examining how the social contract is negotiated, it has been proposed that physicians belong to a "community of practice" that they voluntarily join during their education and training. In joining the community, they accept the norms and values of community members and acquire the identity prescribed by the community. The leaders of the community are responsible for negotiating the social contract on behalf of the medical profession. In so doing, they must ensure that they recognize the importance of devotion to the public good in the maintenance of medicine's professional status.© Copyright 2020 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

8 keywords...

hide…