Year: 2017
Type: article
Abstract: Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word "rationing." We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level.
Authors: Jon C. Tilburt, Daniel P. Sulmasy
Institutions: Mayo Clinic, Georgetown University
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $1,790
Funder: Greenwall Foundation
OpenAlex ID: W2750676784