Individually or united in unions, the doctors called to vote against the FN which wants to abolish State Medical Aid.
Professional unions, liberal generalists, hospitals, deans of faculties, learned societies … Calls to block the National Front in the second round of the presidential election are multiplying among doctors. Usually discreet about its choice of candidates, the profession has multiplied press releases and forums calling for votes for Emmanuel Macron in order to avoid a policy deemed contrary to the fundamental values of medicine. It is only the National Council of the Order of Physicians that will not take a position, “so as not to harm its public service mission,” he told Why Doctor.
Among these fundamental values of medicine, we find State Medical Aid (AME), a system for taking care of “undocumented” people who have been on French soil for at least three months. The Front National wishes to remove this strong marker of French solidarity, to which doctors remain deeply attached for several reasons. Jacques Battistoni, general practitioner in Ifs (Calvados) and vice-president of the MG France union, details them.
Why do doctors care so much for AME?
Jacques Battistoni: Because we know full well, as caregivers, that removing AME would leave thousands of people without care. This would have two consequences, different but which would go in the same direction. For city doctors, they would be faced with a choice: either to treat for free or not to treat refugees at all. For a number of patients, this would be very serious concerns.
For hospital doctors, removing the AME would also have serious consequences. They would see these patients arrive, either because they could not have had access to care and therefore would have to consult them, or because they would have waited a long time and they would then end up with serious pathologies, which would have could be less severe if they had been treated before. I am thinking in particular of tuberculosis, which is quite common.
Was it the AME who prompted this profession, usually discreet on electoral issues, to take a stand?
Jacques Battistoni: Indeed, AME is one of the concrete ways of approaching the problem. More generally, any health policy which goes against the principle of treating people without distinction of race, gender or origin, is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, and to our way of working since always. We are not going to start asking people before treating them what they benefit from as health care …
There is a strong contradiction there. It is therefore quite logical that doctors, hospital and liberal alike, wake up at this time to take a stand, when usually, they do not have to support this or that candidate, they do not have any legitimacy for.
Why not get involved before the 1er turn, when François Fillon also proposed to remove the AME?
Jacques Battistoni: Because at that time, the game was on and voters could make up their minds based on many factors. On the other hand, in 2002 we took a stand against the National Front, we called for blocking a health policy contrary to our values, which are those of all doctors.
This idea that removing the AME would save money because the device would be a resource vacuum is wrong, it is a misconception. When we are looking a little desperately for a way to save money, we often hear: “There is only …” … but it is a mistake. From the moment a foreigner takes refuge on French territory, he must be treated and supported, and even more so if he has no means. It’s almost obvious …
.
