Why Medicine Needs Creativity: Reforming Healthcare Culture
This opinion piece argues that a systemic resistance to creative thinking is undermining the quality of American healthcare. Drawing on sources from Harvard Business Review, MIT Technology Review, and Big Think, the paper examines how medical schools screen out unconventional thinkers, how practicing physicians are penalized for innovation, and how the American Medical Association's reluctance to embrace change is driving patients toward medical tourism. The paper calls on medical educators, hospital administrators, physicians, and patients alike to demand a more imaginative and responsive healthcare system—one that integrates new technologies, personalized care models, and evidence-based innovation within the existing legal framework.
- Introduction and Purpose: Audience identified; persuasive goals stated
- Creativity and the Medical Profession: Argues algorithmic medicine harms patient care
- How Medical Education Suppresses Innovation: Medical schools screen out creative thinkers
- The Cost of Resisting Change: A Case Study: Jay Parkinson's innovative practice was suppressed
- Barriers to Innovation and the AMA's Contradictions: AMA contradicts its own ethics policy on innovation
- Medical Tourism and the Brain Drain Risk: Patients seek care abroad; talent may follow
- Conclusion: The Case for Creative Medicine: Creative thinking essential to save American medicine
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper combines a clearly stated persuasive purpose with a well-defined audience, addressing medical educators, administrators, physicians, and patient-consumers simultaneously.
- A concrete case study—Jay Parkinson's online, house-call-based practice—grounds the abstract argument in a vivid, real-world example that illustrates systemic resistance to innovation.
- The paper leverages the AMA's own stated ethics policy against the organization's practical behavior, creating an effective internal contradiction that strengthens the argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of ethos-building through institutional sources. By citing the Harvard Business Review, MIT Technology Review, and the AMA's own policy documents, the author lends authority to what is fundamentally an opinion-driven argument. This technique—using the establishment's own words to critique the establishment—is a classic rhetorical move that gives the persuasive claims credibility without requiring original empirical research.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying its intended audience and persuasive goals, then moves from the systemic (medical school admissions) to the individual (the Parkinson case study) and back to the systemic (AMA policy, medical tourism, legal barriers). It closes with a brief rallying call. This funnel-and-return structure keeps the argument grounded while building toward a broad policy recommendation.
Introduction and Purpose
The intended public audience for this opinion piece includes stakeholders in the healthcare industry—educators, researchers, nurses, physicians, and hospital administrators. One of its central goals is to persuade members of the healthcare industry to embrace a new paradigm in which creative thought is welcomed and encouraged, rather than shunned and mistrusted as it currently is. Consumers who are willing to pressure their physicians to improve quality of care are also a primary target audience, as all Americans will at some point in their lives avail themselves of medical services. All Americans are likely to have had, at some point or another, a negative experience using medical services. Therefore, the aim is to persuade consumers to demand a higher standard of care.
Creativity and the Medical Profession
The popular television show House helped draw attention to both the need for creativity in medical practice and the resistance it faces. A lack of creativity in the medical field has been detracting from the quality of patient care, as physicians have become "slavish … to standardized treatments," and their decisions have become "increasingly determined by mechanical and algorithmic processes" (Jones 1). An assessment published in the Harvard Business Review accuses medicine of being "chaotic, expensive, inefficient, and often ineffective" (Morse 1). Medicine is not just any business in need of innovation to bolster profitability; it is a field in which quality of care means life or death. As Jones points out, practicing medicine without any creativity "can do more harm than good" (Jones 1).
Therefore, medical schools need to start altering their admissions procedures, changing the way medicine is taught, and training doctors to be creative as well as critical thinkers. Hospital administrators and medical review boards likewise need to inject a healthy dose of creativity into the medical profession by hiring doctors who think outside the box, instead of favoring only those who remain safely within the confines of limited thinking. Moreover, healthcare institutions themselves need to take a more innovative approach to the ways services are promoted, delivered, and offered to patients, in order to create the most robust medical system possible.
How Medical Education Suppresses Innovation
Resistance to creativity in the medical profession begins at the earliest possible point: medical school. Rojahn points out that "those likely to see (or at least attempt to see) connections between disparate subject areas are likely to be weeded out in the medical school application process" (Rojahn 1). Dissatisfied and dismayed with what they have experienced in medical school training, an increasing number of researchers, scientists, and physicians are using new media vehicles—such as the creativity-driven TED Talks—to stimulate discussions about how to promote a more innovative medical profession. By embracing creative thinkers at a young age, the medical field can draw the best and brightest instead of losing top thinkers to alternative fields.
The Cost of Resisting Change: A Case Study
The problem with the lack of creativity in medicine continues immediately after graduation from medical school. Idealism and enthusiasm for the field quickly fade into the reality of a profit-driven, creatively stagnant profession. A case study illustrates what happens when young doctors eager to provide top-quality care are cut down by a system that prefers a robotic approach to medicine.
When Jay Parkinson graduated from medical school and established his first private practice, he opted for an innovative business model used by few or no other physicians in the United States. He decided to establish his practice almost entirely online and based on house calls—an idea that brought his website 7 million hits in the first month alone (Parkinson). Using a streamlined business model and reducing overhead costs to only 10% of his operational budget, Parkinson set out to revolutionize medical practice.
What should have been a catalyst for other doctors to follow instead became a fiasco highlighting the problems that besiege the profession. A barrage of critics within the medical profession itself began to hound Parkinson. Writing about his experience, Parkinson states: "I need to point out that I never once received any criticism from patients or the general public. The only criticism I've ever received came from within the medical community." Those critics pushed the New York State Office of Professional Conduct to investigate, and even though the board found no wrongdoing, Parkinson had become too ostracized from his colleagues to make his revolutionary business model work. Patients thereby lost one of the only opportunities they had to receive care in the way they want it, rather than in the way the paternalistic medical establishment wants to deliver it.
Conclusion: The Case for Creative Medicine
Creativity might be the only thing that can save American medicine from itself. Faith in the American medical system has diminished due to a host of interrelated factors that stem from a lack of creativity. If and when medical students, physicians, and indeed all members of the healthcare profession are not just permitted but also encouraged to think outside the box, we can pave the way for more House-style geniuses in our midst.
Works Cited
American Medical Association. "E-2.072 Ethically Sound Innovation in Medical Practice." Retrieved online:
Jones, Orion. "Why Creativity is Essential to Practicing Medicine." Big Think. 2015. Retrieved online: http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/why-we-must-return-creativity-to-the-medical-practice
Morse, Gardiner. "Ten Innovations That Will Transform Medicine." Harvard Business Review. 8 March 2010. Retrieved online: https://hbr.org/2010/03/health-care-of-the-future
Parkinson, Jay. "What Happens to Doctors Who Think Outside the Box?" Retrieved online: ]/what-happens-to-doctors-who-think-outside-the-box
Rojahn, Susan Young. "Medicine Needs a Dose of Creative Thinking." MIT Technology Review. 11 April 2012. Retrieved online:
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.