A literal translation of the term’s components might be “sick-treater,”-a term devoid of any transactional nature. As such, there is no adequate English translation. It was a newly coined concept which had no echoes in contemporary Nazi nor in post–World War II economic contexts, and had no economic parallels or overtones. First, it builds on an erroneous and misleading translation of the German term Krankenbehandler, which the Nazi authorities introduced for Jewish physicians in 1938. This argument is factually baseless and morally flawed. Ignoring this history means ignoring the advocacy of the very people we serve. 14 The patient as a consumer, and the physician as a provider, was a result of sustained pressure of patient activists. These activities included women demanding doctors abandon radical mastectomies in favor of lumpectomies, patients advocating for lower-cost medications, and advocacy groups working to articulate various forms of “patient bills of rights.” 12– 14 As critiques have rightfully argued, these small-scale reforms, while important, also served to hinder larger calls for an overhaul of the health care system. 11 Patient activism was subsumed into a form of consumer activism, which brought about a realignment of forces in the practice of medicine. As historian Nancy Tomes has shown, the 1970s patient-consumer movement was a response to medical paternalism, and an unresponsive medical establishment. In fact, the “patient as consumer” movement was fueled by patient activists, who were eager to reclaim power, autonomy, and independence.