Perspective: Medical Professionalism and Medical Education Should Not Involve Commitments to Political Advocacy
Abstract
It is increasingly suggested that political advocacy is a core professional responsibility for physicians. The author argues that this is an error. Advocacy on behalf of societal goals, even those goals as unexceptionable as the betterment of human health, is inevitably political. Claims that political advocacy are a professional responsibility are mistaken, the author argues, because (1) civic virtues are outside the professional realm, (2) even if civic virtues were professionally obligatory, it is unclear that civic participation is necessary for such virtue, and (3) the profession of medicine ought not to require any particular political stance of its members. Claims that academic health centers should systematically foster advocacy are also deeply problematic. Although advocacy may coexist alongside the core university activities of research and education, insofar as it infects those activities, advocacy is likely to subvert them, as advocacy seeks change rather than knowledge. And official efforts on behalf of advocacy will undermine university aspirations to objectivity and neutrality.American society has conferred remarkable success and prosperity on its medical profession. Physicians are deserving of such success only insofar as they succeed in offering society excellence and dedication in professional work. Mandatory professional advocacy must displace such work but cannot substitute for it. The medical profession should steadfastly resist attempts to add advocacy t…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Cites
Perspective: Physician Advocacy: What Is It and How Do We Do It?
Earnest, M. A., Wong, S. L., & Federico, S. G. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181c40d40 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Gruen, R. L., Campbell, E. G., & Blumenthal, D. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.20.2467 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 2002, Lancet, 359, 520, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07684-5 · DOI
- Grande, 2008, J Gen Intern Med, 23, 1987, 10.1007/s11606-008-0811-x · DOI · Paper page
- Grande, 2007, J Gen Intern Med, 22, 585, 10.1007/s11606-007-0105-8 · DOI
- Wagner, 2007, Med Educ, 41, 288, 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02695.x · DOI
- Pellegrino, 1986, Arch Intern Med, 146, 2265, 10.1001/archinte.146.11.2265 · DOI
- Friedman, 2006, Crit Rev, 18, 467, 10.1080/08913810608443673 · DOI
- Somin, 1998, Crit Rev, 12, 413, 10.1080/08913819808443511 · DOI
- Morphew, 2006, J Higher Educ, 77, 456, 10.1353/jhe.2006.0025 · DOI
- Lewkonia, 2001, BMC Med Educ, 1, 4, 10.1186/1472-6920-1-4 · DOI
- Kronman, 1981, Yale Law J, 90, 955
- Rosenberg, 2007, Bull Hist Med, 81, 511, 10.1353/bhm.2007.0087 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Perspective: Is It Time for Advocacy Training in Medical Education?
Croft, D., Jay, S. J., Meslin, E. M., Gaffney, M. M., & Odell, J. D. (2012) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31826232bc · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Advocacy Training for Residents: Insights From Tulane’s Internal Medicine Residency Program
Andrews, J., Jones, C., Tetrault, J., & Coontz, K. (2019) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002500 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Huntoon, K. M., McCluney, C. J., Wiley, E. A., Scannell, C. A., Bruno, R., & Stull, M. J. (2012) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-12-47 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Huddle, T. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huddle, Thomas S.
- ORCID
- Huddle, Thomas S.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 378-383
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162981349
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 14.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- political advocacy, medical professionalism, medical education, civic virtue, citizen participation, academic medical centers, objectivity and neutrality, professional responsibility, research integrity
- MeSH terms
- Education, Medical, Humans, Patient Advocacy, Physician's Role, Politics, Professional Competence, Public Policy, United States
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review