Medicine is fundamentally oriented toward healing. Physicians have cured diseases, alleviated pain, extended life expectancy, and expanded collective self-understanding beyond what was conceivable a century ago. Few professions have contributed more to human well-being. However, medicine also confers significant power. Physicians influence individual behavior, shape public policy, direct scientific research, and, particularly during crises, wield considerable authority within society. This power can be beneficial, yet it also risks transforming confidence into unwarranted certainty and rendering authority resistant to challenge.
Power itself is not inherently dangerous; the greater risk lies in excessive certainty.
The most significant ethical failures in medicine rarely stem from malicious intent. More commonly, they arise from overconfidence, hasty decision-making, and the belief that challenging circumstances necessitate drastic measures. The transition from beneficence to harm is seldom abrupt; it typically unfolds gradually, propelled by good intentions and increasing confidence in one’s own judgment. Numerous troubling episodes in medical history were initiated by individuals who sincerely believed they were acting appropriately.
The authority of medicine is grounded in general trust. Patients disclose their most profound concerns to physicians, trusting that truth, compassion, and respect will be prioritized. Society grants physicians special privileges, with the expectation that their expertise will be exercised judiciously and with humility. Perfection is not expected; rather, honesty, acknowledgment of uncertainty, and a commitment to continual reassessment are essential. These responsibilities are foundational to contemporary medical ethics and research regulations.¹⁻⁵ Yet, uncertainty is uncomfortable.
Uncertainty is broadly uncomfortable for patients, governments, the public, and physicians alike. During crises, this discomfort intensifies. Emergencies such as pandemics or wars generate a collective demand for definitive answers, even in the absence of sufficient information. Leaders may feel compelled to project confidence, while experts experience pressure to alleviate public anxiety. The inherent uncertainty of scientific inquiry can, under these conditions, become particularly difficult to tolerate.
In these situations, medicine faces a big risk: mistaking confidence for real knowledge.
Scientific progress is driven not by consensus, but by the continual questioning of established ideas, the challenging of prevailing norms, and the willingness to adapt in response to new evidence. Experienced physicians have witnessed the abandonment of once-celebrated treatments. Medical paradigms have shifted repeatedly; interventions once embraced have been discarded, and regulations once considered immutable have been revised. These changes do not signify failure; rather, they demonstrate the ongoing vitality of scientific inquiry.⁶⁻⁸
Science moves forward because of doubt, not because everyone agrees.
Throughout medical history, episodes abound in which certainty yielded to humility. Bloodletting persisted for centuries under the mistaken belief that its rationale was sound. Frontal lobotomy, initially regarded as a breakthrough and recognized with a Nobel Prize, was later discredited due to its harmful consequences. Hormone therapy for postmenopausal women was widely adopted until large-scale studies raised concerns about its safety and efficacy. Certain antiarrhythmic drugs, intended to prevent sudden cardiac death, were subsequently found to increase risk in some populations. Numerous critical care practices once deemed reasonable have since been revised or abandoned.
These stories do not mean science is incompetent. Instead, they remind us to stay humble. They show that our knowledge can change, and we should remember that we might not see the whole picture. Being willing to question ourselves is not a weakness in medicine; it is one of its greatest strengths.⁶⁻⁸
When physicians become convinced of their infallibility, significant risks emerge. Excessive certainty can gradually suppress intellectual curiosity, diminish openness to alternative perspectives, and reduce receptivity to novel ideas. Over time, leaders may disregard criticism, transforming constructive debate into perceived disloyalty and rendering uncertainty a subject to be concealed rather than discussed.
Crises make ethical challenges even more complicated. Emergencies change what we see as right and wrong. Things that once seemed extreme can suddenly feel necessary. Societies accept restrictions and actions that would have been unthinkable just months before. Sometimes these changes are justified because emergencies do require action. The real ethical question is not whether we should adapt in a crisis—we must. The question is where adaptation ends, and ethical erosion begins.¹,²,⁴,⁹
Historical evidence indicates that emergencies frequently concentrate power among a limited group and reduce opportunities for dissent. In times of crisis, themes of urgency, unity, and rapid action dominate discourse. While these responses are understandable, they can oversimplify complex issues, obscure uncertainty, and marginalize alternative viewpoints. Paradoxically, periods that most require wisdom and humility may instead foster overconfidence and increased centralization of authority.
History rarely announces the moment ethics begin to erode.
Ongoing controversies surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic underscore the continued relevance of these ethical questions. Recent allegations regarding Dr. Anthony Fauci, including research management, discussions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, and collaboration with governmental and intelligence agencies, have provoked intense public debate concerning scientific authority, transparency, and accountability. These issues remain unresolved and are likely to persist as sources of contention among scientists, policymakers, and historians. The debate goes beyond any single individual. The central concerns are broader: How should scientific leaders communicate uncertainty? What responsibilities accompany significant influence over public policy? To what extent should research oversight be transparent? How should dissenting perspectives be addressed when evidence is incomplete? What safeguards are necessary when societies invest substantial trust in a small group of experts?
These questions transcend personalities.
The Covid-19 pandemic exposed longstanding tensions within medicine. Expertise remains essential, yet experts are fallible: they may disagree, models may prove inaccurate, and predictions may fail. Even well-intentioned policies can yield unforeseen consequences. The primary challenge is not to eliminate expertise, but to ensure that experts remain transparent, honest, and sufficiently humble to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge.
The pandemic also illuminated a further reality: contemporary medicine extends beyond clinical and laboratory settings. Scientific leaders now operate within a complex environment that includes governments, regulatory bodies, media, social media, industry, and international organizations. In this context, scientific decisions frequently carry significant political and social implications. Physicians and scientists in influential positions may find their impact extends well beyond the boundaries of medicine.
Such influence imposes extraordinary responsibilities.
The exercise of authority amid uncertainty requires honesty and intellectual humility. Public trust is reinforced not by the projection of infallibility, but by the candid acknowledgment of knowledge gaps. Leaders must remain open and humble when wielding power during uncertain times. Trust is enhanced when experts admit the limits of their knowledge, rather than feigning certainty. Most individuals can tolerate uncertainty if it is communicated honestly. However, trust erodes when advice is presented as definitive and later revised without acknowledging the evolving nature of knowledge. The rapid pace of scientific advancement often outstrips society’s capacity to fully assess its implications. Innovations in biotechnology, artificial intelligence, genomic editing, and high-risk biological research offer substantial benefits while simultaneously introducing new ethical challenges.¹⁻⁴,⁸,¹⁰
The issue is not whether scientific research should continue. It must. The issue is whether scientific capability and ethical wisdom advance at the same pace.
History suggests that they often do not.
Physicians and scientists possess ethical obligations that extend beyond technical competence. Knowledge, expertise, and intelligence alone are insufficient. The responsible exercise of power necessitates less quantifiable qualities such as sound judgment, humility, openness, and receptivity to criticism. Scientific leaders must remain open to scrutiny, particularly given the potentially serious consequences of errors.
Humility is not the enemy of expertise. It is its necessary companion.
Being humble means knowing that our knowledge is incomplete. It means accepting that mistakes can happen and that smart people can honestly disagree. What seems certain today might be proven wrong tomorrow. Most of all, humility means that leaders should always be open to being questioned.⁵⁻⁸ Every generation of doctors believes it is more enlightened than the last. In many ways, this confidence is justified because scientific progress has been remarkable. Yet history shows that each generation also has blind spots that only become clear later.
The purpose of medical history is not to equate contemporary practitioners with those responsible for past ethical failures. Such comparisons are unproductive. The more challenging lesson is that ethical problems often emerge gradually. They arise when certainty replaces curiosity, when dissent is viewed as problematic rather than integral to science, and when established protocols are bypassed in the name of urgency.
Every generation believes it will never repeat the mistakes of the past. History encourages caution.
The moral standards that emerged after the catastrophes of the 20th century—from the Nuremberg Code to the Belmont Report and the Declaration of Helsinki—were built upon a common recognition: scientific capability, however extraordinary, must always remain subordinate to human dignity, transparency, and moral restraint.¹⁻⁴
Given the considerable influence of medicine, substantial self-restraint is required. The primary challenge is not merely the acquisition of new knowledge or technological advancement, but the preservation of the wisdom necessary to apply these capabilities judiciously. A physician’s foremost obligation is not to personal ideas, reputation, loyalty, or consensus, but to truth, transparency, and respect for individuals.
The future of medicine may depend more on whether we stay humble and keep asking tough questions than on what we can do. Are we honest about uncertainty? Are we open enough? Do we accept being challenged? Have we become too sure of ourselves? Are we really listening to different opinions, or just trying to control them? Have we confused being an expert with being always right?
The physician’s first responsibility is not to be certain. It is the truth.
The progression from healing to harm is seldom driven by malice. More frequently, it is shaped by conviction, amplified by urgency, and enacted by individuals who are convinced of their own rectitude. The enduring challenge in medicine is not solely the acquisition of knowledge, but the preservation of humility to ensure that power serves humanity rather than becoming detached from it. The requisite courage for physicians extends beyond decisive action in crises; it encompasses the willingness to embrace uncertainty, invite scrutiny, and recognize that the preservation of ethical medicine depends less on confidence than on the continual practice of self-questioning.
Arguably, the most critical question for medicine is not, “What are we capable of doing?” but rather, “How certain are we that our actions are justified?” The response to this question may ultimately determine whether medicine continues to honor its foundational commitment to healing or gradually shifts toward the exercise of power divorced from the humility that has historically served as its moral compass.
References
- Nuremberg Military Tribunal. The Nuremberg Code. JAMA. 1996;276(20):1691.
- World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
- World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Participants. Ferney-Voltaire, France: World Medical Association; 2024.
- National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1979.
- Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. For the Patient’s Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
- Pellegrino ED. The Virtues in Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
- Popper KR. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge, 1963.
- Jonas H. Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall; 1974.
- Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(20):1436-1440. doi:10.1056/NEJM199711133372006.
- Resneck JS Jr. Revisions to the Declaration of Helsinki on its 60th anniversary: a modernized set of ethical principles to promote and ensure respect for participants in a rapidly innovating medical research ecosystem. JAMA. 2025;333(1):15-17.
Join the conversation:
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
