Truth or consequences

Spheres of Morality: The Ethical Codes of the Medical Profession

The medical profession contains five "spheres of morality": clinical care, clinical research, scientific knowledge, population health, and the market. These distinct sets of normative commitments require physicians to act in different ways depending on the ends of the activity in question. For example, a physician-scientist emphasizes patients' well-being in clinic, prioritizes the scientific method in lab, and seeks to maximize shareholder returns as a board member of a pharmaceutical firm. Physicians increasingly occupy multiple roles in healthcare and move between them frequently, creating the possibility of conflict between the ethical obligations of their various roles. This paper examines the entire moral landscape of medicine through the lens of role morality. It develops a novel framework that helps physicians recognize how their moral commitments depend on the nature and context of the situation, clarifies ethical conflicts that physicians face, and concludes with ideas for resolving these conflicts.

Discrepancy between Health Care Rationing at the Bedside and Policy Level

BACKGROUND

Whether doctors at the bedside level should be engaged in health care rationing is a controversial topic that has spurred much debate. From an empirical point of view, a key issue is whether there exists a behavioral difference between rationing at the bedside and policy level. Psychological theory suggests that we should indeed expect such a difference, but existing empirical evidence is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether rationing decisions taken at the bedside level are different from rationing decisions taken at the policy level.

METHOD

Behavioral experiment where participants ( n = 573) made rationing decisions in hypothetical scenarios. Participants (medical and nonmedical students) were randomly assigned to either a bedside or a policy condition. Each scenario involved 1 decision, concerning either a life-saving medical treatment or a quality-of-life improving treatment. All scenarios were identical across the bedside and policy condition except for the level of decision making.

RESULTS

We found a discrepancy between health care rationing at policy and bedside level for scenarios involving life-saving decisions, where subjects rationed treatments to a greater extent at the policy level compared to bedside level (35.6% v. 29.3%, P = 0.001). Medical students were more likely to ration care compared to nonmedical students. Follow-up questions showed that bedside rationing was more emotionally burdensome than rationing at the policy level, indicating that psychological factors likely play a key role in explaining the observed behavioral differences. We found no difference in rationing between bedside and policy level for quality-of-life improving treatments (54.6% v. 55.7%, P = 0.507).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate a robust "bedside effect" in the life-saving domain of health care rationing decisions, thereby adding new insights to the understanding of the malleability of preferences related to resource allocation.

ICU capacity strain and the quality and allocation of critical care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Increasing demand for critical care, with limited potential for comparable expansion of supply, may strain the abilities of ICUs to provide high-quality care in an equitable fashion. Efforts to counter the untoward consequences for the quality and ethics of critical care delivery are limited by the absence of a specific and validated metric of ICU capacity strain.

RECENT FINDINGS

This manuscript presents a conceptual framework for ICU capacity strain, considers what data elements may contribute to it, and suggests methods for determining the optimal metric. Next, it outlines the range of potential consequences of increased capacity strain, in terms of both the quality and ethics of care delivered. Finally, consideration is given to how untoward consequences of ICU capacity strain might be mitigated through better understanding of what makes some ICUs better able than others to withstand temporal fluctuations in the demand for their services.

SUMMARY

Development of an appropriately accurate and parsimonious measure of ICU capacity strain may augment the precision of future critical care outcomes research by reducing unexplained variance attributable to temporal fluctuations in ICU-level factors; elucidate organizational characteristics that make some ICUs better able to withstand high-capacity strain without substantive degradations in quality; and enhance the transparency of critical care rationing while helping to improve its equity and efficiency, thereby promoting the ethics of this inevitable practice.

Rationing in the intensive care unit: to disclose or disguise?

INTRODUCTION

Growing pressures to ration intensive care unit beds and services pose novel challenges to clinicians. Whereas the question of how to allocate scarce intensive care unit resources has received much attention, the question of whether to disclose these decisions to patients and surrogates has not been explored.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS

We explore how considerations of professionalism, dual agency, patients' and surrogates' preferences, beneficence, and healthcare efficiency and efficacy influence the propriety of disclosing rationing decisions in the intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

There are compelling conceptual reasons to support a policy of routine disclosure. Systematic disclosure of prevailing intensive care unit norms for making allocation decisions, and of at least the most consequential specific decisions, can promote transparent, professional, and effective healthcare delivery. However, many empiric questions about how best to structure and implement disclosure processes remain to be answered. Specifically, research is needed to determine how best to operationalize disclosure processes so as to maximize prospective benefits to patients and surrogates and minimize burdens on clinicians and intensive care units.

Does professional autonomy protect medical futility judgments?

Despite substantial controversy, the use of futility judgments in medicine is quite common, and has been backed by the implementation of hospital policies and professional guidelines on medical futility. The controversy arises when health care professionals (HCPs) consider a treatment futile which patients or families believe to be worthwhile: should HCPs be free to refuse treatments in such a case, or be required to provide them? Most physicians seem convinced that professional autonomy protects them from being forced to provide treatments they judge mentally futile, given the lack of patient benefit as well as the waste of medical resources involved. The argument from professional autonomy has been presented in a number of articles, but it has not been subjected to much critical scrutiny. In this paper I distinguish three versions of the argument: 1) that each physician should be free to exercise his or her own medical judgment; 2) that the medical profession as a whole may provide futility standards to govern the practice of its members; and 3) that the moral integrity of each physician serves as a limit to treatment demands. I maintain that none of these versions succeeds in overcoming the standard objection that futility determinations involve value judgments best left to the patients, their designated surrogates, or their families. Nor do resource considerations change this fact, since they should not influence the properly patient-centered judgment about futility.

Preferences for disclosure: the case of bedside rationing

While rationing is present in many health care systems, little empirical research has been undertaken to investigate the public's preferences and information needs towards the rationing of their care. This paper reports the results of an interactive survey administered via an internet survey panel to investigate preferences for the provision of information about explicit rationing decisions. We presented a series of vignettes to respondents, describing hypothetical patients and explicit rationing decisions. In two different survey versions, patients were either characterized as matching or mismatching respondents' age and gender. We observed strong preferences for the disclosure of rationing information to patients. Seventy one percent of responders expressed a general attitude in favor of explicitly informing patients about the rationing of their care. In the presented scenarios, the fraction supporting disclosure to patients ranged from 63% to 89%. The clinical situation described in the vignettes, a positive, general attitude towards the disclosure of rationing decisions, age, and gender of respondents were main predictors for participants' votes. Preferences were relatively unaffected and insensitive to the matching of hypothetical patients and respondents' characteristics. This study suggests that if doctors are to play an active role in health care rationing, patients expect them to honestly discuss the decisions made, the economics behind these and finally, to deal with those patients that do not accept the final decision.

ORS is never enough: physician rationales for altering standard treatment guidelines when managing childhood diarrhoea in Thailand

This study explores Thai physicians' rationales about their prescribing practices for treating childhood diarrhoea within the public hospital system in central Thailand. Presented first are findings of a prospective clinical audit and observations of 424 cases treated by 38 physicians used to estimate the prevalence of sub-optimal prescribing practices according to Thai government and WHO treatment guidelines. Second, qualitative interview data are used to identify individual, inter-personal, socio-cultural and organisational factors influencing physicians' case management practices. Importantly, we illustrate how physicians negotiate between competing priorities, such as perceived pressure by caretakers to over-prescribe for their child and the requirement of health authorities that physicians in the public health system act as health resource gatekeepers. The rationales offered by Thai physicians for adhering or not adhering to standard treatment guidelines for childhood diarrhoea are contextualised in the light of current clinical, ethical and philosophical debates about evidence-based guidelines. We argue that differing views about clinical autonomy, definitions of optimal care and optimal efficiency, and tensions between patient-oriented and community-wide health objectives determine how standard practice guidelines for childhood diarrhoea in Thailand are implemented.

Psychiatrists' views of managed care and the future of psychiatry

Managed care aims to insure the health of a population rather than that of an individual. This paper compiles opinions of psychiatrists and others on managed care and lists ways managed care potentially affects psychiatry. Managed care reverses the economic incentives indemnity insurance gave doctors to prolong treatment. It encourages psychiatrists to spend less time on empathic discussion and to use more standardized, less costly treatments. Many psychiatrists feel distressed about how managed care has changed their practices. Capitation care will change it further. Current trends suggest the U. S. will use and train fewer psychiatrists. Psychiatrists will spend less time with individual patients and more time planning and guiding the treatment of severely impaired patients. Many more psychiatrists will likely have unprecedented changes imposed on their careers.