Veatch Robert M
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1997 Dec;7(4):391-401. doi: 10.1353/ken.1997.0041.
After establishing that it is essential that health care be rationed in some fashion, the paper examines the arguments for and against clinicians as gatekeepers. It first argues that bedside clinicians do not have the information needed to make allocation decisions. Then it claims that physicians at the bedside can be expected to make the wrong choice for two reasons: their commitment to the Hippocratic ethic forces them to pursue the patient's best interest (even when resources will produce only very marginal benefit and could do much more good elsewhere) and their values will lead them to calculate the net value of treatments incorrectly. Alternative decision makers are considered. It is argued that both groups of physicians and administrators will also make allocations incorrectly and that leaving the allocation decisions to patients themselves is the best approach. Mechanisms for fair and efficient rationing by patients at the societal and individual level are examined.
在确定以某种方式进行医疗资源配给至关重要之后,本文审视了支持和反对临床医生作为把关人的论据。首先,文章认为床边临床医生不具备做出分配决策所需的信息。接着,它声称床边医生可能会做出错误选择,原因有二:他们对希波克拉底伦理的承诺迫使他们追求患者的最大利益(即使资源只会产生非常微小的益处,而在其他地方可能会带来更多好处),而且他们的价值观会导致他们错误地计算治疗的净价值。文章还考虑了其他决策制定者。有人认为,医生和管理人员这两类人也会做出错误的分配决策,而将分配决策留给患者自己是最佳方法。文章探讨了患者在社会和个人层面进行公平有效配给的机制。