No, but it is an expectation that the doctor care about the patient's feelings on the matter.So for instance when a 30-year-old doctor is expected to show compassion to their elderly patient recovering from a hip replacement, it's not an expectation that the doctor age 40 years and have major surgery.
Why do you think that's obvious? If we are speaking in hypothetical ideals, the ideal world would have everyone's needs met without needing any assistance from the government at all. Nobody hopes to need government assistance, and many see the existence (and scale) of government programs as an impediment to not needing them.Sure, there's all manner of variability, but in terms of general popularity, less affluent people obviously do want to make sure that there's a guaranteed minimum and provision of resources and assistance to help them progress.
Take, for example, the recent suggestion by Democrats to give a certain amount of money towards home purchases. For what it's worth, I don't think this is the worst policy as it at least incentivizes something we want more of, first-time home buyers. But if you put $25,000 towards people's first homes, it's going to raise the price of every home as the market adjusts to the increase in available spending power, which will make it harder to buy a home without the government's assistance. When the government starts doing things for people, it can become difficult or impossible to do it yourself, which only increases the need for the government to step in.
And I'm telling you that the Democrats' messaging is appealing not to actual compassion, but to a sense of superiority in the minds of their voters. "If you vote for us, that means you're a better person."I'm talking about how politicians design messages to most beneficially excite the emotional responses of voters, and why the sorts of messages left and right come out with can be very different.