Rationing and life-saving treatments: should identifiable patients have higher priority?

被引:37
作者
Hope, T [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, England
关键词
rule of rescue; priority setting; resource allocation; rationing; justice;
D O I
10.1136/jme.27.3.179
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Health care systems across the world are unable to afford the best treatment for all patients in all situations. Choices have to be made. One key ethical issue that arises for health authorities is whether the principle of the "rule of rescue" should be adopted or rejected. According to this principle more funding should be available in order to save lives of identifiable, compared with unidentifiable, individuals. Six reasons for giving such priority to identifiable individuals are considered. All are rejected. It is concluded that the principle of the rule of rescue should not be used in determining the allocation of health resources.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 185
页数:7
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1985, JUST HLTH CARE STUDI
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1972, A Theory of justice
[3]   Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers [J].
Daniels, N ;
Sabin, J .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 1997, 26 (04) :303-350
[4]  
Edgar A, 1998, ETHICAL QALY ETHICAL
[5]  
Hope T, 1998, BRIT MED J, V317, P1067
[6]  
Montgomery J., 1997, HLTH CARE LAW
[7]   The cost of refusing treatment and equality of outcome [J].
Savulescu, J .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 1998, 24 (04) :231-236
[8]   The present-aim theory: A submaximizing theory of reasons [J].
Savulescu, J .
AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 1998, 76 (02) :229-243
[9]   QALYs and ethics: A health economist's perspective [J].
Williams, A .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 1996, 43 (12) :1795-1804