Fiduciary Duty

As I have mentioned before, I am an attorney. One of the things that goes along with representing clients is that I have a "fiduciary duty" to them. Stated in simple terms, it means that I have to put their interests ahead of mine. If there is a situation where our interests diverge (for example, imagine I'm helping a client sell real estate and know that the buyer intends to sell it to me so that I can profit handsomely), I have to inform the client of the conflict and, often, get a waiver of the conflict in writing. This is the essence of a fiduciary duty.

My father, a manager for a corporation, had a fiduciary duty to the corporation.

It is in light of that definition of fiduciary duty that I question why it is that my doctor does not have a fiduciary duty to me. While I, the lawyer, control (to some extent) the outcome of my client's litigation, the doctor controls the outcome or very existence of his patients' lives. You, dear reader, tell me which one requires more trust.

If my doctor owns the MRI machine, he doesn't have to tell me that when he orders an MRI. Huh.

If my doctor owns a piece of the surgical center, he doesn't have to tell me that when he orders a surgery. Huh.

Huh.

Is it just me, or should my doctor have a fiduciary duty to me, not only to give me his best advice as to medical treatment, but also to tell me which procedures or drugs are financially frivolous and whether he is receiving something of value as s direct result of his medical directives (whether or not there is a quid pro quo)?

Some thoughts on health care. . . something clearly lacking in controversy (sic).