Jan Jekielek is a senior editor with The Epoch Times, host of the show “American Thought Leaders” and co-host of “FALLOUT” with Dr. Robert Malone and “Kash’s Corner” with Kash Patel. Jan’s career has spanned academia, international human rights work, and now for almost two decades, media. He has interviewed nearly a thousand thought leaders on camera, and specializes in long-form discussions challenging the grand narratives of our time. He’s also an award-winning documentary filmmaker, producing “The Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told,” “DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns,” and “Finding Manny.”

Jan Jekielek

NTD Plus

Shows

At a time when our nation is becoming increasingly polarized, media often ignore viewpoints and stories that are worthy of attention. American Thought Leaders, hosted by The Epoch Times Senior Editor Jan Jekielek and his reporting team, features in-depth discussions with important thought leaders on key issues facing America—and Canada, the world—today.

American Thought Leaders

The Charter School Principal Turning Children Toward Plato, Virtue, and the Eternal | Caylan Ford

The CCP’s Greatest Insecurity—and America’s Greatest Weapon | Sam Brownback

Homeopathy Cured Her Disease, Now She’s Fighting for More Access | Paola Brown

Mollie Hemingway: The Untold Story of How One Man ‘Reshaped the Supreme Court’

Why a Taiwan Invasion Would Trigger Trillions in Global Losses | Amb. Alexander Yui

Inside ‘Trump 2.0’ and the Media’s Role in Political Violence | Sean Spicer

Over 1,000 CCP-Linked Groups in America: Exposing United Front Operations | Peter Mattis

Sen. Ron Johnson: Here’s What We Found in 11 Million Pages of COVID Records

Here’s What Darwinian Evolution Can’t Explain About the Origins of Species | Stephen Meyer

Why 28- and 29-Year-Olds Are Disappearing From China’s Uyghur Concentration Camps | Ethan Gutmann

NTD Newsroom comprises teams of reporters, editors, and producers assigned to cover breaking news and other stories.


NTD Newsroom

News

Fast, compelling, first-hand news from China. China in Focus airs Monday–Friday at 8 p.m. ET.

China in Focus

China Sends Warships to Pacific Drill as Tensions With Japan Rise

Reuters is a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters. It employs around 2,500 journalists and 600 photojournalists in about 200 locations worldwide writing in 16 languages.

Reuters

We present news that is truthful and based on facts, outside of the political fog. Instead of focusing on the negative things happening around us, our mission is to give our viewers a good morning with empathetic and uplifting stories. Our aim is to provide an antidote to negativity by shining a light on the best side of people. We speak to inspiring people who positively impact communities, pursue topics that represent our common human values, and will never miss an opportunity to bring you heartwarming stories.

NTD Good Morning

2 US Embassy Personnel Assigned to Cartel Case Killed in Car Accident

The Associated Press is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. 

The Associated Press

US News

Gunman Kills 8 Children, Including 7 of His Own, in Louisiana Mass Shooting

Flora Hua is a reporter based at NTD's global headquarters in New York City, where she covers China news, U.S.-China relations, and human rights issues. Flora primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus."  

Flora Hua

Trump: Seized Iranian Ship May Have ‘A Gift From China’

Joseph Lord is a congressional reporter for The Epoch Times.


Joseph Lord

Aldgra Fredly is a freelance writer covering U.S. and Asia Pacific news for The Epoch Times.

Aldgra Fredly

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani Hospitalized in Critical Condition: Spokesman

Wildfires Across Georgia and Florida Have Destroyed Nearly 50 Homes and Are Forcing Evacuations

News you can trust from the U.S. and around the world. Critical information and insight. We cover the stories that others don’t. NTD News Today airs Monday–Friday at 11 a.m. ET.

NTD News Today

US Warns of China Hacks via Routers, Smart Devices

Juliet Song is an international correspondent exclusively covering China news for NTD. She primarily contributes to NTD's "China in Focus," covering U.S.-China relations, the Chinese regime's human rights abuses, and domestic unrest inside China.

Juliet Song

2 Americans Among Suspected Communist Rebels Killed in Clashes With Troops, Philippine Officials Say

Ryan Morgan is a reporter for The Epoch Times focusing on military and foreign affairs. He was previously a news writer for NTD. 


Ryan Morgan

Mari Otsu is NTD's White House correspondent based in Washington. 

Mari Otsu

World News

Middle East

Iran

3 US Warships Fend Off Iranian Attacks, Trump Says Ceasefire Still Holds

Health News

3 Dead in Suspected Hantavirus Outbreak on Cruise Ship in Atlantic Ocean: WHO

Texas AG Ken Paxton Breaks Down Wave of Lawsuits Targeting CCP Surveillance

The Many Hidden Fronts of CCP Unrestricted Warfare | Casey Fleming

Has Xi Jinping Unified His Own Enemies? | Robert Suettinger

How the CCP Dehumanizes Christians in China | Pastor Bob Fu

Why the Iran War Is All About China | Zineb Riboua

From Iran to Venezuela—How Trump Is Neutralizing Beijing’s Allies | Gordon Chang

The Failures of Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom | Peter McIlvenna

From AI Girlfriends to Brain Implants, How the AI Revolution Is Radically Reshaping Our World | Wynton Hall

Most Americans Agree: You Can’t Change Your Sex | Jonathan Butcher

The Woke Movement Has Peaked. What’s Next? | Andrew Doyle

Rob Schneider: Here’s What’s Wrong With Our Culture Today

Why These 9 Institutions Must Be Reformed Post-COVID | Jeffrey Tucker

Canning, Compost, and Chickens: How to Stop Relying on Others for Food | Special Episode

Charles Murray: I Thought Religion Was Irrelevant to Me. I Was Wrong.

‘We’re at an Inflection Point’: What’s Next for America? | Robert George

Robert Kiyosaki: Why America’s Middle Class Keeps Getting Poorer

The CCP’s Gloves Are Off in Trade War—What’s Next? | Lee Smith

How Tariffs Once Paid America’s Bills–And Why They Could Again | John Gardner

Jeffrey Tucker: Everything You Need to Know About the Fed

Impact of Trump’s Trade, Tax, Energy Policies | Mark Skousen

How Clay Clark Helped Small Businesses Survive—and Thrive—During the Pandemic and Beyond

Eric Trump: How America Can Outcompete China in Manufacturing

EJ Antoni Decodes the Trump Economy and the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Controversy

How ‘Brain Rot’ and the Escapist Virtual World Are Harming Our Youth | Adnan Alkhalili

Treating the Root, Not Just the Symptoms: The Power of Integrative Medicine | Dr. Daniel Monti

Exclusive: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on How the NIH Is Rethinking Autism, DEI, China Ties, and Gain-of-Function

The False Promise of Antidepressants | Dr. Joanna Moncrieff

Why Steak Is at the Top of the New Food Pyramid | Dr. Shawn Baker

A New Approach to Alzheimer’s? | Lou Reese

Dr. Mehmet Oz: Up to $4 Billion in Health Care Fraud in California

The Evidence of Harm: What the Data Really Show About Pediatric Transgender Procedures | Leor Sapir

An Exclusive, Inside Look at Shen Yun Performing Arts | Special Episode

Epoch Cinema

Cinema

A Little Sketchy TV

Breast Milk, McDonald’s, & Garbage | A Little Sketchy

3-Headed Hydra, NSA, & Cringe | A Little Sketchy

Special

Jubilee Celebrations, Valentines Day, & Selling to China | A Little Sketchy

Freedom Convoy, Ukraine, & Winter Olympics | A Little Sketchy TV

He Ran the World’s Biggest Payment Processor; Now He’s Taking on Social Security | Frank Bisignano

Devin Nunes on Ending the Politicization of America’s Intelligence Agencies

Exclusive: Inside SBA’s Crack Down on Loan Fraud Nationwide | Administrator Kelly Loeffler

Exclusive: Kash Patel Talks China Fentanyl, Violent Networks, ‘Burn Bags,’ and More

Andy Ngo: I Was Nearly Killed by Antifa. This is What I Learned.

Eric Trump Opens Up About How Relentless Attacks Impacted Him and His Family

Why Charlie Kirk’s Approach Matters Now More Than Ever | Pastor Jackson Lahmeyer

The Battle Over Alligator Alcatraz, the US Census, and CCP Surveillance | Florida AG James Uthmeier

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Modern medicine is veering away from the traditional Hippocratic Oath that required physicians to do no harm and use their knowledge and skills solely for the purpose of healing the patient, says psychiatrist and bioethics expert Dr. Aaron Kheriaty.

Now, physicians are euthanizing patients, removing healthy organs in certain transgender-related surgeries, and injecting drugs for late-term abortions even when the mother’s life is not threatened.

Hippocratic principles are being superseded by utilitarian ethics that prioritize the “greater good” over the well-being and rights of individual patients, Kheriaty says. That’s fueling, for instance, the push to expand the dead-donor eligibility criteria for organ donations.

It’s also manifesting in the push to adopt technological advancements like germ-line gene editing that could be used to create “designer babies” or in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), a process that uses stem cells, such as those derived from skin cells, to create human eggs and sperm in a lab.

Earlier this year, an op-ed in the MIT Technology Review <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/03/25/1113611/ethically-sourced-spare-human-bodies-could-revolutionize-medicine/">argued</a> for the creation of “spare” human bodies called “bodyoids.” These would essentially be human bodies created in laboratories from human stem cells, but without brains or consciousness. Proponents say they would revolutionize medical research and drug testing and create an unlimited supply of organs.

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction. What are the true ethical implications? Is this really where we want medicine to go?

Kheriaty is the director of the bioethics and American democracy program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former director of the medical ethics program at UCI Health.

His latest book is titled “Making the Cut: How to Heal Modern Medicine.”

“The biggest advance [that] medicine needs to make is to accept the limits of medicine,” he says.

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NTD.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:

Dr. Aaron Kheriarty, so good to have you back on American Thought Leaders.

Always good to be with you, Jan.

So in your new book, Making the Cut, you say, I was not prepared for what training to be a doctor would entail. I took little for granted in medical school, and for some time, I felt like a field anthropologist in some far-off village looking in on a foreign culture and studying the habits of the natives. What?

So I’ve always been something of both an insider and an outsider to medicine. And it may sound strange, but my book, Making the Cut, which is in part a memoir of my medical training in medical school, in part it’s a philosophy of medicine, and in part a critique of contemporary healthcare. But the medical narrative part, the stories of my training have value because I didn’t really take anything for granted when I went to medical school. As I said, I didn’t know what I was getting into. I had studied philosophy as an undergraduate and gotten my pre-med requirements.

But I went to medical school fairly naive as to how it was going to go and what I was going to expect. And pretty much everything there astonished me. I couldn’t believe the kinds of things that happened there and the kinds of things that we were allowed to do. If you stop and think about it, medical students are allowed to do things that in any other context would be considered criminal felonies, like carving up a dead body when we do dissection in a gross anatomy lab and basically take a cadaver, take a corpse, and dissect it down till there’s nothing left. I mean, we take it to pieces; we pull it apart.

But as they say in the chapter where I describe the gross anatomy lab, I never knew this person’s name, right? It’s an astonishing thing that we allow, and we allow it for good reason. That’s the best way to learn anatomy, which is obviously a necessary set of knowledge for physicians to have. And so the book, on the one hand, is a critique of many aspects of medical training. It’s a critique of contemporary healthcare and our healthcare systems. But it’s also a love story because, somewhat to my surprise, I—this also may sound strange to put it this way—but I really did fall in love with medicine during medical school.

And while I love medicine and while I have been able to see medicine done at its finest in a way that really serves the needs of the patients and accomplishes astonishing feats, life-saving feats, that makes it all the more kind of heartbreaking when I see institutional medicine going off the rails and veering from its mission. When you see something done really well, it makes it all the more painful and heartbreaking to see it done poorly. And so I think the book contains both elements. It’s a love story, but it’s also a heartbreaking love story because my lover has turned into a prostitute of late. That’s painful to watch.

Well, I absolutely want to talk about, you know, the distinction between this, the medicine of trying to do the best for an individual patient versus the medicine of the greater good. Before we go there, though, you know, talking about, you know, kind of interesting and bizarre things you did. You talk about an amputation, a leg amputation that you were involved in. So tell me a little bit about that. It’s a very surreal experience.

So this is the opening of chapter five, and it’s just one of the many little vignettes and stories that I tell in the book to try to put the reader right there at the bedside or right there in the operating room and imagine what it’s like to do some of the really astonishing things that physicians do. We were doing a leg amputation because a person had developed gangrene from peripheral vascular disease, which is basically the tissue in the foot starts to die, and death cannot live in harmony and symbiosis with life. And so in some of these tragic cases, we have to actually amputate the leg.

This is an above-the-knee amputation, meaning most of the leg came off. My job was to hold the leg. And so I’m holding the leg until I’m just holding the leg. You know, the electric saw was buzzing, bits of bone were flying as we’re cutting through the person’s femur. And suddenly, much more quickly than I imagined what happened, the leg came off and was free in my hands. And it was heavier than I expected.

It was a very surreal experience holding a leg that just seconds before had been attached to this living person’s body. I didn’t quite know what to do with it at first. The nurse walked in with a big bag labeled biohazard. So I put the leg in the biohazard bag, and she took it out of the room. I closed the vignette by saying, I wonder what they do with those biohazards. That’s my introduction to the chapter on surgery.

The chapter is all about how surgeons traffic in body parts, especially transplantation surgeons, doing astonishing feats like taking out a cirrhotic liver and replacing it with a new, fresh, living, life-sustaining liver that was just taken from a person a few hours ago who died tragically in a motorcycle accident. So death for one patient contributes to life for another patient and raises all kinds of, I would argue, complex ethical and philosophical issues around the whole enterprise of transplantation that I try to explore in that chapter.

You know, just very recently, as I’m doing research for my book on the forced organ harvesting industry in China right now, I learned of one case where a patient— you know, a verified case where a patient who had a—precisely this, a cirrhotic liver—within three days he was able to get a new, you know, perfectly functioning liver.

Of course, in China, we have the now well-documented forced organ harvesting system, which you know as much, if not more about than I do. Even in the West, where generally we’ve held to something called the dead donor rule, meaning before you take an unpaired organ, a life-sustaining organ, you could take a kidney from a living donor because they have two of them and they can survive without one of them, but a liver or the heart or the lungs and so forth, the person has to be dead. The person can’t be killed in the process of organ harvesting.

So we have laws in all 50 states upholding this so-called dead donor rule, which is, of course, absolutely necessary to maintain trust in the organ transplantation system. But there are people now not just quietly but even publicly in the pages of our newspapers pushing against the dead donor rule and saying, we could save more lives if someone is dying but not yet dead. Instead of waiting for them to die and sometimes waiting so long that the organs are no longer viable or no longer useful for transplantation, why not just end their lives sooner as part of the organ harvesting procedure and thereby save a greater number of lives in the end? This is the kind of utilitarian bioethics that I think is very dangerous. By utilitarian, I mean the greatest good for the greatest number and without any, you know, absolute prohibitions against certain practices.

So I’ve been arguing recently that it’s our deep engagement with communist China in many areas but specifically in transplantation. You know, we train many of their transplant surgeons, many of whom are murderers in effect because they participate in the system. We sell all sorts of and manufacture and sell all sorts of materials that are used in the transplantation process. We have deep, deep connections in terms of research and funding. I’m learning more and more about how deep this goes. It’s kind of astonishing.

We had this vision some time ago; this was the Kissinger Doctrine that we were going to change China. It’s going to liberalize. It’ll become like South Korea or Taiwan or something where it changes from an authoritarian regime. But it never did. They are totalitarian, and they stayed that way. In fact, you could argue they actually have changed us. And that’s how this softening of the dead donor rule is happening. I mean, never mind deciding that this dead donor rule doesn’t quite cut it itself.

I think that’s exactly right. It was a misunderstanding of the nature of the current regime in China and the Chinese Communist Party when we had these unrealistic hopes that by opening up trade with them and establishing better trade relationships that we were going to influence them more than they were going to influence us. I agree with you completely that the direction of influence has gone in the opposite direction. In fact, China has always seemed to be interested and willing to learn from Western technologies, but not necessarily from Western culture.

I think that the very same thing is happening when it comes to what you just described, especially with medicine and particularly with organ transplantation. They’re happy to use Western science and technology to learn how to do transplantation procedures. But rather than adopting the ethical system that is in place to try to put some boundaries on organ transplantation, they’ve just completely done it their own way. And doing it their own way means doing it without consent, forced organ harvesting, doing it in a way that either kills the person or doesn’t wait until they’re dead, and often doing it as a political tool to persecute minorities, as readers of The Epoch Times and listeners to your show know very well.

It’s particular groups that are often targeted not because they’ve engaged in criminal behavior but because they’re somehow a challenge to the regime’s ideology. I could talk to you forever about these things, but let’s jump back to your book. And specifically, you struggle with all sorts of these questions. These are things I’ve been thinking about a lot in a whole range of contexts of this distinction between Hippocratic medicine, which is medicine where, you know, do no harm for the patient, do everything you can for that individual patient, vs. this greater good medicine where you kind of weigh the statistics and you say, well, maybe we can lose a few of these so we can help more of these. Yes, well, first of all, explain that distinction to me a little more, and then let’s talk through a few examples of how this manifests.

So the traditional Hippocratic view of medicine says that the doctor’s primary, and in some sense, only loyalty is to the vulnerable sick patient that comes to them for care. And illness is a universal affliction that can impact anyone, rich, poor, famous, obscure. It’s the great equalizer. And illness makes us vulnerable.

And when we’re vulnerable and we don’t have the internal resources or tools to heal ourselves, we usually go against our inclination to the emergency room or to the hospital or to the clinic and place ourselves under the care of someone who professes to heal. We’re accustomed to talk about any occupation as a profession, but in the ancient world, there were only four occupations that were considered professions: doctors, lawyers, teachers, and priests, the clergy. What do all four of these have in common?

All four of them are characterized by a relationship between a person who is in need of some service—teaching, healing, legal counsel, spiritual care—and a person who professes to provide that in order to help that individual patient and not for some ulterior purpose. So that’s a relationship that requires trust because one person is more vulnerable than the other person, right? If the doctor-patient relationship doesn’t go well, the patient stands to lose more than the physician, right? They could get worse. They could become more ill.

And so all of these professions had a tradition to try to encourage public trust in the profession as a whole by making a public promise before they engaged in their work. They were professions precisely because they professed an oath, promising to do certain things and to avoid doing other things. And of course, for physicians, that was the traditional Hippocratic oath, which said, I’m going to use all of my knowledge and skills always and only for the purpose of health and healing, and not for some other end. So I’m not going to use my knowledge and skills to kill. I’m not going to give a deadly drug, even if the patient asks for it.

That’s in the traditional Hippocratic oath. I’m not going to violate the patient’s confidentiality because that would undermine the trust that they have in me. And my loyalty is to the sick patient, regardless of who they are. And I have to treat all of them equally.

That is currently being undermined by another view of medicine that says, well, the tools of medical technology certainly can be used for healing, but guess what? They can be used for all kinds of other different things. You can use your knowledge of pharmacology and physiology to heal patients or to kill them, right?

And so we get the rise of doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia. We get many physicians participating in capital punishment, so state-sanctioned killing. You can use your knowledge and skills of psychology or pharmacology to engage in torture of political prisoners, right? So this is why the American Medical Association [AMA] takes a position against those things because they undermine the trust that patients would have in medicine.

The AMA doesn’t say, as a member of the AMA, you have to politically be against capital punishment. You can believe whatever you want on this issue. But as a physician, you shouldn’t use your knowledge and skills as a physician to participate in capital punishment because the public needs to look at doctors and know this person is a healer. They’re not a killer. They’re not here to do something else.

So there’s this other view of medicine that pushes against that that says if something is technically feasible and the patient or a third party will pay for it and the doctor is capable of doing it, the doctor has to provide it. This can explain a lot of the controversies around what advocates call gender-affirming care, what I think more accurately should be called sex-rejecting procedures. Take a physiologically healthy person and start amputating body parts in order to give them the appearance of a person of the opposite sex. Well, this is not a healing enterprise. This is using medicine for some other technical purpose. This is not Hippocratic medicine.

An organ harvesting system that says the greatest good for the greatest number would approve of things like, we have a healthy child here, and they have healthy organs. And if we killed this child and harvested all of their organs, we could save the lives of five different people who are awaiting a heart, a lung, a kidney, and a liver transplant and are going to die. Otherwise, on a pure utilitarian, greater good calculus, that would be something that medicine might engage in or might approve of. That kind of thing may be happening in places like China, arguably.

Well, so just you’re bringing me back to the topic that I’m obsessing over as I’m writing this book, you know, kind of as we speak, but, you know, precisely, it’s kind of almost like the logical conclusion. Because if you have a group of people like the Falun Gong or the Uyghurs, incarcerated in large quantities, dehumanized through propaganda and all sorts of other ways, and like, you know, why not? You know, these people aren’t really worth the same as other people. Why don’t we use them for, well, some saving lives, but also a lot of profit. And, you know, for elites, right, it’s really unlimited organs on demand forever, right?

Historically, the classic example of this is, of course, what happened in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. And by the way, it began happening even before the Nazis came to power, the adoption of the eugenics ideology. And I like to remind people that eugenics did not start in Germany. Eugenics ideology started in the United Kingdom, in the United States.

So in the United States, 27 out of the 50 states in the early 1900s adopted laws where people could be forcibly sterilized to prevent the wrong kind of people, quote-unquote, from reproducing. And of course, you know, women, racial minorities, and impoverished individuals were disproportionately represented among the people who were forcibly sterilized. Famous Supreme Court case that, by the way, has never been overturned. The laws that it upheld have been reversed.

But with Buck v. Bell in 1927, the famous American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, who in the majority ruling said the principle that allows for forced vaccination is, “wide enough to cover the cutting of the fallopian tubes.” And then the famous line in the Supreme Court ruling, three generations of imbeciles are enough. In other words, if we take these people who are cognitively disabled or, you know, impoverished or have what we think are criminal tendencies or whatever, and we forcibly sterilize them, somehow we can purge society of these undesirables.

So it’s the dehumanizing of people that began in this country. And Hitler looked to the laws in the United States for the forced sterilization laws in Germany. And then the Germans took it the next step with their so-called T4 euthanasia program. And they started not only forcibly sterilizing mentally and physically disabled individuals, but forcibly killing them as well.

The first gas chambers in Nazi Germany were not located in concentration camps. They were located in psychiatric hospitals. And the first people who were gassed were not ethnic minorities like Jews. They were cognitively and mentally disabled patients in these hospitals, and all of those deaths were signed off on by physicians.

So the medical enterprise in Germany was complicit with the state-sponsored eugenics program, and it was built on an ideology of the greater good rather than the traditional Hippocratic medicine which says, my job is to treat this vulnerable individual patient who has equal dignity to any other person. There was this idea that, again, started in the 1920s and before the Nazis came to power, that the job of medicine was to treat the social organism. There was this metaphor of the Volk, the society as a whole, being healthy or sick.

And so if society as a whole is healthy or sick, some members of society are kind of a cancer on the social organism or the body politic because they’re not contributing economically or because they’re disabled in some way and they’re a drain on the system. Well, what does a physician do with a cancer? He carves it out and gets rid of it in order to preserve the health of the organism as a whole. So this metaphor took hold in the mind of a German physician, which made them prone to and open to the Nazi ideology when it came to power.

And then that led, of course, to all the horrible atrocities that we heard about in the concentration camps with unconsented experiments on concentration camp prisoners, which eventually led to the Nuremberg Code in the wake of World War II to try to put a stop to all of this. And of course, the first principle in the Nuremberg Code is the principle of informed consent, which we’ve seen over the last few years we’ve tossed overboard in favor of forced vaccination during the COVID pandemic.

They’ve obviously tossed the principle of informed consent overboard if we’re talking about forced organ harvesting in China. So in, Making the Cut, one of the arguments I make is the need to maintain the traditional Hippocratic ethic of medicine, where the doctor-patient relationship is at the center of the medical enterprise. And to violate that is to take us down a path that’s going to lead to some very dark places.

What this actually reminds me of is this very infamous statement, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, right? Like that’s really, and that’s, of course, Joseph Stalin, you know, all for the greater good, ostensibly, right? Is there any scenario where it’s possible to think that way from an ethical perspective in medicine or actually, frankly, in organizing a society? Like, I’ve been thinking about these things for obvious reasons, but I think I kind of believed in the greater good way of thinking, you know, going back 10 years.

If you practice good Hippocratic medicine, that will give us the highest likelihood of leading to the greater good. But that will be a downstream consequence of adhering to sound ethical principles when it comes to the care of individuals. So the idea of trying to contribute to the greater good or to the common good, to a good that all of us participate in, that’s maybe more than the sum of our individual goods. I believe there is some validity to that concept. But the question is, how do we contribute to that in medicine?

And I think the best chance of achieving something close to that is to adhere to traditional Hippocratic principles of using my knowledge and skills always and only for the purpose of healing, doing whatever I can to minimize harm. There’s always risks in medicine, but we do our best to minimize those risks. Treating each individual patient as a person equal in dignity and human rights, regardless of extraneous factors that have nothing to do with their illness. And I think within medical ethics, the place in which people are most prone to a utilitarian calculus would be disaster medicine, where the demand for a particular intervention exceeds the supply.

So you have an earthquake or a pandemic or some natural disaster that floods the hospital with more patients than the hospital can care for. And you have, let’s say, a limited number of ventilators. How do you allocate those ventilators? Well, there may be a place for thinking about that in terms of utilitarian calculus.

But still, the question boils down to how do we do the most good for the most number of individual patients with the limited resources that we have? And you have to think through triage medicine, I think, in those terms, which doesn’t really require adopting a utilitarian or greater good ideology. More often than not, if you do that, that leads to discriminatory practices.

So rather than treating according to medical need and who’s most likely to benefit from the ventilator, who’s most likely to survive if we give them one of our limited number of ventilators, then we start thinking about factors like how valuable this person is to society and should we prioritize the treating of important people over the treating of impoverished or marginalized people. And I think that’s a very dangerous path to go down. Those factors should not play a role in making these kinds of medical decisions.

So there’s been a ton of technological innovation that is basically being used in medicine. Again, in the organ industry, you have ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation], for example. That replaces the heart and lungs, used for various types of surgeries and stuff, but also could keep a body warm a bit longer and more organs can be transplanted. I’ve been thinking a lot about these technologies, but overall, there’s been this kind of scenario of diminishing returns of these technologies.

I think that is correct.

Why is that? And how does this utilitarian view play out?

Certainly, medical technology can be a very good thing, and it can contribute to the advance of medicine. But if we look to technology to solve all of our problems within healthcare, we’re going to continue getting diminishing returns precisely because at the center of healthcare, as I said earlier, is not a novel technology or a novel medication or procedure or intervention. It’s a relationship between someone who professes to use their knowledge and skills for healing and someone who’s made vulnerable by illness, and the more we get away from the centrality of the doctor-patient relationship, the less effective we’re going to be at healing.

And one of the things I describe in Making the Cut, which is subtitled, How to Heal Modern Medicine, which suggests that contemporary health care is sick in some way, is that with the advent of new technologies, but also with the advent of what I call a managerialist regime in medicine, we have a system now where, and by managerialism, I mean the ideology that everything can and should be controlled by the experts from the top down, right?

And that this produces a kind of homogenizing system where everyone gets the same thing. It produces a kind of industrialized healthcare system that is more concerned with efficiently moving, shuffling people through the machinery of the hospital, rather than actually tailoring the care to their individual needs. And this is not producing good outcomes.

You mentioned diminishing returns. We’re spending twice as much on health care in the United States as any other nation, and we’re barely breaking the top 50 of developed nations in terms of health outcomes. So we’re not getting a good return on our investment. We have to ask the question of why that is. And I try to explore that question in the later chapters of the book.

But one of the problems is this excessive centralization, this managerialist ideology, where physicians are more and more constrained. And we lack the ability to tailor treatments to the needs of individual patients. We lack appropriate, what I call discretionary latitude, appropriate elbow room, right, to adjust the recipe that we’re given to actually fit the patient who’s sitting in front of us, who’s going to be unique because every human body is different and every patient is different and everyone’s history and social context is different. And all of those things impact their illness, how they respond to the illness, and the possibility of recovering from illness.

And so medicine has moved away from that into a kind of industrialized system where everyone gets the same thing. I call it turnstile medicine. It’s modeled on Disneyland. Disneyland is designed by engineers for efficient people moving. Get as many people through the rides on any given day as possible, as many people through the food lines and the bathroom lines as possible. Move them through the system.

Well, hospitals function according to the same logic. So under the Affordable Care Act, we have bundled payments for different interventions. So you get a fixed amount of money for a hip replacement, right? So if you happen to be a patient who has a complication from your hip replacement surgery or is just not recovering according to the, you know, the statistical average, you begin to be resented by this hospital system that is obsessively focused on what administrators call throughput—get them in, get the procedure done, get them out—because if there’s any complications, we’re losing money, and patients begin to feel this.

They begin to feel that my care is not being tailored to my individual needs. My doctor, instead of having a face-to-face conversation with me, is sitting over here staring at a computer screen asking me a series of questions dictated by external managers that have nothing to do with my chief complaint. And I leave that encounter feeling unheard, uncared for, and very often unhealed.

So what I argue in the later chapters of Making the Cut is that we need to move away from this centralized system of control and allow different experiments and decentralized health care delivery to develop. And I give a few examples of that, of things that are being tried right now in that regard. But I think the general thrust needs to be toward decentralization, toward helping patients take back responsibility for their own health and healing. Medicine obviously has a role. I’m a physician. I treat patients. I sometimes need the care of a physician myself, and that’s very valuable when you need it.

But there’s a lot more that people could be doing on their own that doesn’t require them to be continuously processed through this industrial-scale health care system that we’ve developed in the United States. And by the way, it matters very little where the top-down managerialist control is coming from—a government in a government-run health care system or from corporate conglomerates in a system like the one that we have now, where large corporations are gobbling up local clinics and local hospitals and taking control of health care delivery.

How does this fit into something you point out, which is that the number three cause of death right now in America is iatrogenic? So basically, medical intervention is the number three cause of death. I mean, how does that work?

So ironically, one of the things that comes out of my analysis is that the biggest advance medicine needs to make is to accept the limits of medicine. And if we don’t accept the limits of medicine and we over-intervene, we end up doing more harm than good. And all the way back in the 1970s, there was a very prophetic writer, Ivan Illich, who I quote extensively toward the end of the book, who made this argument in a book called Medical Nemesis that once any industry, and he uses medicine as his example in this book, grows to a certain size, by the very nature of its size and scope and control over our lives, it ends up not only not achieving its intended purpose, which is health and healing, but actually undermining that purpose. I think he makes a strong case for that.

He saw it coming 50 years ago, but what he saw coming is now manifested in a much more obvious way. And we have the statistics, as you mentioned, on iatrogenic disease and iatrogenic harms, harms that are done and come as a consequence of medical interventions themselves. So not only do we need decentralization of health care, but we need to place reasonable limits on health care interventions because too much health care actually, ironically and paradoxically, ends up undermining our health and our ability to live a healthy lifestyle and pursue the things that will address the kinds of problems that we’re facing today.

So medicine is very good at dealing with acute trauma and acute illness. So if, God forbid, you know, tomorrow you get hit by a truck, go to the nearest emergency room, let the trauma surgeon patch you back together. We’re very good at doing that.

We’re not very effective at treating chronic illnesses, as has been pointed out by many people today in the medical freedom movement and the Make America Healthy Again movement. We’re failing when it comes to chronic disease; medicine is not only not curing or alleviating these chronic illnesses, in some respects it may be contributing to them and making the problem worse and making us more and more dependent on a system that’s not actually working.

So how do we get out of that sort of doom loop? I have a chapter on death and dying. And in that chapter, I argue that death is the horizon against which medicine is practiced. And if physicians see death as the final enemy to be conquered, we’re going to lose in every case. In spite of all the amazing new medical technology, the human mortality rate continues to hold steady at 100 percent.

So we’re all going to die of something. And a medicine that cannot accept that is a medicine that’s going to end up harming people toward the end of life rather than helping them to live their last days well. And of course, there are many people today who are laboring under the delusion that science and medicine can solve the problem of death.

The transhumanist movement is probably the most extreme example of this, but there are proposals within mainstream medical science and mainstream medical research of radical life extension and solving the problem of aging and death. I certainly want to help older people live healthier lives and live out a normal human lifespan with as much vigor and health and functionality as they can. That’s a good and legitimate goal of medicine.

But the idea of making people live forever, I think, is a mistake. I think it’s going to come back to bite us, come back to haunt us. And in fact, it’s a kind of religious aspiration that we can somehow be saved from the problem of human mortality by science and technology, I think, is an illusion. And if medicine adopts that illusion, it’s going to end up doing a lot more harm than good.

Latest

Paywall Related

Free for Subscribers

Conversations on current and trending topics.

Health &amp; Science

Latest and breaking news, documentaries, movies, and lifestyle content on NTD+.
 
Empower your knowledge and elevate your spirit with NTD+, your go-to destination for truthful news, insightful documentaries, and captivating lifestyle content that enriches your life.

From Gene-Edited Babies to ‘Bodyoids,’ the Brave New World of Modern Medicine | Dr. Aaron Kheriaty