Show simple item record

dc.creatorUbel, Peter A.en
dc.creatorGoold, Susanen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-05T19:00:17Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-05T19:00:17Zen
dc.date.created1997-01-01en
dc.date.issued1997-01-01en
dc.identifier10.7326/0003-4819-126-1-199701010-00010en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationAnnals of Internal Medicine. 1997 Jan 1; 126(1): 74-80.en
dc.identifier.issn0003-4819en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Recognizing+Bedside+Rationing:+Clear+Cases+and+Tough+Calls&title=Annals+of+Internal+Medicine.++&volume=126&issue=1&pages=74-80&date=1997&au=Ubel,+Peter+A.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-1-199701010-00010en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/751458en
dc.description.abstractUnder increasing pressure to contain medical costs, physicians find themselves wondering whether it is ever proper to ration health care at the bedside. Opinion about this is divided, but one thing is clear: whether physicians should ration at the bedside or not, they ought to be able to recognize when they are doing so. This paper describes three conditions that must be met for a physician's action to qualify as bedside rationing. The physician must 1) withhold, withdraw, or fail to recommend a service that, in the physician's best clinical judgment, is in the patient's best medical interests; 2) act primarily to promote the financial interests of someone other than the patient (including an organization, society at large, and the physician himself or herself); and 3) have control over the use of the beneficial service. This paper presents a series of cases that illustrate and elaborate on the importance of these three conditions. Physicians can use these conditions to identify instances of bedside rationing; leaders of the medical profession, ethicists, and policymakers can use them as a starting point for discussions about when, if ever, physicians should ration at the bedside.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceBRL:MEDKIE/97127954en
dc.subjectAlternativesen
dc.subjectCase Studiesen
dc.subjectConflict of Interesten
dc.subjectDecision Makingen
dc.subjectDiagnosisen
dc.subjectDisclosureen
dc.subjectDrugsen
dc.subjectEconomicsen
dc.subjectEthicistsen
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Careen
dc.subjectHospitalsen
dc.subjectInstitutional Policiesen
dc.subjectInsuranceen
dc.subjectMotivationen
dc.subjectPatient Advocacyen
dc.subjectPatient Careen
dc.subjectPatientsen
dc.subjectPhysician's Roleen
dc.subjectPhysiciansen
dc.subjectResource Allocationen
dc.subjectRisks and Benefitsen
dc.subjectScarcityen
dc.subjectSelection for Treatmenten
dc.subjectTerminologyen
dc.subjectUncertaintyen
dc.subjectValuesen
dc.subjectWithholding Treatmenten
dc.titleRecognizing Bedside Rationing: Clear Cases and Tough Callsen
dc.provenanceDigital citation created by the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at Georgetown University for the BIOETHICSLINE database, part of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics' Bioethics Information Retrieval Project funded by the United States National Library of Medicine.en
dc.provenanceDigital citation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named NBIO hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection BioethicsLine hosted by Georgetown University.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885