I think Joe hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons I’ve focused on personhood during my short bioethics career is that American physicians are increasingly unable to distinguish between the human being and the biological system. Some deny altogether the existence of anything beyond the physical body, but others only consider the spirit or the soul to be some sort of esoteric thing about which one might philosophize. As a result most physicians believe that if they know the medical information, perform the procedure correctly, and achieve a good outcome then they have practiced good medicine. Tips they can gain from Abraham Verghese about interacting with the patient are icing on the cake. An inspirational insight from Atul Gawande allows them to be reflective in their spare time. But really, those kinds of things are for humanities professors or hospital social workers. In the medical curriculum, we see this value system in ethics teaching that amounts to not much more than instruction on managing emotional responses. “Use this phrase when talking to a patient about cancer so they will feel this way.” “When you enter the exam room, perceive the patient’s disposition by examining facial cues and posture.” If the physician uses a stimulus-response framework for patient interaction, then he has fallen back into the same problem all over again. That’s why mentorship is so important in medicine: a student “lives life” with the attending physician so as to acquire his way of looking at the world, not just his skills. That’s why the oaths—Hippocrates, Maimonides, or others—are so important: they emphasize that medicine is a covenant between two people before it’s anything else. And, most notably, that’s why a medical practice most consistent with Jesus’s healing ministry is one which would still have something to offer if the machine and the lab report were not even there.