Arrow physicians: are economics and medicine philosophically incompatible?

Economics is en route to its further expansion in medicine, but many in the medical community remain unconvinced that its impact will be positive. Thus, a philosophical enquiry into the compatibility of economics and medicine is necessary to resolve the disagreements. The fundamental mission of medicine obliges physicians to practise science and compassion to serve the patient's best interests. Conventional (neoclassical) economics assumes that individuals are self-interested and that competitive markets will emerge optimal states. Economics is seemingly incompatible with the emphasis of putting patients' interests first. This idea is refuted by Professor Kenneth Arrow's health economics seminal paper. Arrow emphasizes that medical practice involves agency, knowledge, trust and professionalism, and physician-patient relation critically affects care quality. The term Arrow Physician is used to mean a humanistic carer who has a concern for the patient and acts on the best available evidence with health equity in mind. To make this practice sustainable, implementing appropriate motivations, constitutions and institutions to enable altruistic agency is critical. There is substantial evidence that polycentric governance can encourage building trust and reciprocity, so as to avoid depletion of communal resources. This paper proposes building trusting institutions through granting altruistic physicians adequate autonomy to direct resources based on patients' technical needs. It also summarizes the philosophy bases of medicine and economics. It, therefore, contributes to developing a shared language to facilitate intellectual dialogues, and will encourage trans-disciplinary research into medical practice. This should lead to medicine being reoriented to care for whole persons again.