Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

Three pitfalls of accountable healthcare rationing

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. The challenge of defining standards of prevention in HIV prevention trials

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Harmonisation of ethics committees' practice in 10 European countries

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. The risk of developing a meningioma during and after pregnancy

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Somatostatin receptor-targeted radiopeptide therapy in treatment-refractory meningioma: Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Randomized blinded trial of automated REBOA during CPR in a porcine model of cardiac arrest

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Safe handling of veins in the pineal region-a mixed method study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  • EANS Ethico-legal committee
Vis graf over relationer

A pandemic may cause a sudden imbalance between available medical resources and medical needs where fundamental care to a patient cannot be delivered. Inability to fulfil a professional commitment to deliver care as needed can lead to distress among caregivers and patients. This distress is sometimes alleviated through mechanisms that hide the facts that care is rationed and not all medical needs are met. We have identified three mechanisms that jeopardise accountable and optimal allocation of resources: (1) hidden value judgements that allow rationing under the disguise of triage or prioritisation, (2) disguised conflict of interest between societal and individual patient's needs and (3) concealed biases in the application of medical tools. Under these three pitfalls decisions of resource allocation and who gets treated are handled as medical decisions: normative decisions are concealed and perceived as falling with the realm of medical judgement. Value judgements and moral agency are hidden to offer a 'false sense of medical judgement', while in fact there are several ethical judgements and biases at stake. The three pitfalls entail hidden normative deliberation and are inappropriate for sustainable healthcare delivery and resource allocation. We believe it is necessary to maintain transparency in decision making under conditions of insufficient resources to maintain trust in professional care givers and secure fair treatment allocation. Recognition of the pitfalls, by applying our recommendations, may help to ensure transparent and accountable distribution of care and contribute to public acceptance of the ethics behind rationing.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Medical Ethics
ISSN0306-6800
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 13 jan. 2021

ID: 63844569