Is the physician's duty to the individual patient or to society?

Redefining accountability in health care: managing the plurality of medical interests

Conflict in health service delivery is common. It is often attributed to disputes between clinicians and patients or their families about treatment decisions and is particularly common in intensive care units (ICUs), in the form of `futility disputes' between families and medical clinicians about decisions to terminate the active treatment of a dying family member. More common, but less prominent in the literature, is conflict within the medical profession about patient care goals and treatment. We contend that managing the plurality of medical interests is essential in achieving a more managed and positive experience for patients and families of the care they receive, and for achieving standards of quality and resource use. From an ethnographic study undertaken in a large ICU in Sydney, Australia, we found that the knowledge and practice differences of multiple medical decision-makers generated conflict, inconsistency of practice and subjectivity of decision-making that impeded coherent clinical decision-making and integrated patient care planning, coordination and care review. Improving patients' and families' experience of care requires medical clinicians and medical managers to accept responsibility for institutionalizing effective communication and decision-making processes within clinical networks and between clinical and managerial domains. Thus, strategies to improve patient care will need to extend beyond the medical profession to incorporate administrative management. We conclude that restructuring communication and decision-making processes is imperative to achieve clinical accountability in the workplace and systems accountability in the organization.

Conflicts in the Surgeon's Duties to the Patient and Society

Surgeons may face a dilemma in which their obligations to their patients and their obligations to others or society may conflict. One way of examining these conflicts is through a model as depicted in Fig. 1. When both the patient and society are benefited (eg, in cases of routine surgical care), the surgeon may proceed with the planned treatment. In situations where it is agreed that both the patient and society will be harmed (eg, surgeon involvement in capital punishment or in many cases of deception), the surgeon should avoid acting in a manner against that of the patient. Many situations, however, involve the need to weigh the benefits and burdens of both the patient and society. In these cases, surgeons need to analyze carefully all of the ethical and legal issues involved, and make a decision based on their own set of values.

"There is power in the blood": a case discussing ethical issues of utility of resources

The allocation of medical resources is often a great concern in the United States. This article discusses a case concerning utility of resources in a patient with a terminal disease. We assert that the goals of treatment tailored to an individual patient should be made at the bedside by a fiduciary (physician) in conjunction with the patient's preferences and values. There is great responsibility in making these decisions and it is critical that they be made at the bedside with the patient and family clearly aware of the goals of treatments and informed of treatment limitations.

Cost effectiveness in the intensive care unit

Effective policies to reduce true costs will require integrated information systems and demand behavioral changes from providers. A congenial environment must be created among medical educators, providers, vendors, and consumers if cost reduction is to be accomplished without compromising quality or access to critical care services. Physicians should do everything they believe may be of benefit for their patients, but we have an obligation to educate the public about the limitations of our art and the fact that "doing everything" is not always best for the patient or the grieving family. A significant method of controlling ICU costs is closely monitoring which patients are admitted and when they are discharged. Laboratory tests represent a source of cost reduction, and physicians must learn to order specific tests and not simply a battery of tests which includes the actual test desired. Limits should be placed on the tests that are ordered in terms of number and frequency. Improved efficiency of the utilization of resources should improve the care of our patients. The largest budget item of any or most critical care units is nursing; it is paramount that this essential and invaluable resource be utilized in a cost-effective manner. Diminishing unnecessary activity will both decrease complications and have salutary effects. Having more time to be with patients and their families will decrease our sense of failure and fulfill the important goal of caring. Physicians and nurses can return to thinking, assessing, and decision making instead of frenetically ordering, reacting, and intervening, which, we believe, accurately describes informational overload created by undue emphasis on high technology. In this way, we can respond to Fuch's exhortation that "physicians consider the possibility of contributing more by doing less." In responding, however, we must never forget that the societal, not merely the economic impact of medical care, is our principal consideration. We must first contribute more by achieving a greater understanding of the medical care process. Only then can we know how to do less at the bedside. We can and must distinguish between costly and high-quality care--they are not necessarily synonymous.

Medical ethics--when to stop treatment

Several misunderstandings regarding the question of when to stop treatment are examined by considering two frameworks for sorting out the different dimensions of the question. One framework addresses what is meant, and what is not meant, by 'stopping treatment'. The other plots various strategies of stopping treatment on a continuum of increasing degrees of invasiveness. While significant disagreements remain at important points, there is evidence of an emerging consensus in Western medicine: (1) that palliative care and counselling through the dying process should be increased whenever curative or life-sustaining treatment is curtailed; (ii) that any treatment that is not curative, but merely life-sustaining, should be stopped whenever a patient makes an authentic request to have it stopped; (iii) that genuinely futile treatment should not be offered even if requested; (iv) that much more thought and discussion is required to achieve a workable agreement about the definitions of 'futile' and 'inappropriate' treatment; and (v) that assistance in dying, although profoundly problematic, is no longer unthinkable.