Allocating Health Resources Ethically: New Roles for Administrators and Clinicians

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Summary Rationing of health care is an inevitable correlate of living in a world of finite resources. It is morally necessary. The Hippocratic ethic commits clinicians to do whatever will benefit the patient and therefore must be abandoned in a world of moral rationing. After looking at some unacceptable preliminary strategies, two patient-centered adjustments in the Hippocratic ethic, adopting a more objective standard of patient benefit and adding a principle of patient autonomy, are defended. Still, however, cutting the fat out of the system will not be sufficient. A true social ethic of resource allocation will be necessary. A social contract approach supports a principle of equity as a necessary supplement to utility and cost-benefit analysis. It does not follow, however, that clinicians must take on these social ethical decisions. Clinicians should be exempt from normal social ethics so they are free to pursue the objective welfare of patients (provided they consent to such benefit). Administrators are in no better position to allocate scarce resources. What is needed is input from patients to (a) set categorical limits on their own care, (b) articulate principles for fine-tuning the allocation decisions, and (c) supervise professional agents who will make specific gatekeeping decisions for allocating a pool of resources legitimately thought to belong to the patient population. Neither administrators nor clinicians will be responsible for rationing decisions.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: