Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Department of Philosophy, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.
J Med Ethics. 2018 Mar;44(3):212-216. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103071. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual physicians to individual patients because their population-based focus sets a tone that seems to emphasise responsibilities for groups of patients by groups of physicians in an organisation. Prior to undertaking a cogent debate about the fate and normative weight of special obligations and a traditional ethic for contemporary healthcare, we need a deeper examination of what the traditional ethic of special obligations really means. Here we offer a conception of 'doubly distributed' special obligations. Physicians and similarly minded healing professionals abiding by a traditional ethic have always spread their devotion and attention across multiple patients and have shared responsibilities with physician and non-physician colleagues in much the same way devoted parents have frequently distributed their special obligations across multiple children and across multiple parents. By taking up the extended analogy of parent we argue that doubly distributing special obligations need not contradict the possibility of special obligations in restructured collective forms of healthcare delivery and financing.
传统医学伦理主张,医生对与他们有临床关系的个体患者负有特殊义务。美国医疗保健融资的当代趋势,如捆绑式支付,似乎威胁到个体医生对个体患者的特殊义务的传统观念,因为其基于人群的重点设定了一种基调,似乎强调了由组织中的医生群体对患者群体负责。在对特殊义务和传统医疗保健的规范权重的命运进行有力的辩论之前,我们需要更深入地研究传统特殊义务伦理的真正含义。在这里,我们提供了一种“双重分配”特殊义务的概念。遵守传统伦理的医生和类似的治疗专业人员一直将他们的奉献和关注分散到多个患者身上,并与医生和非医生同事分担责任,就像尽职尽责的父母经常将他们的特殊义务分配给多个孩子和多个父母一样。通过采用延伸的父母类比,我们认为,双重分配特殊义务并不一定与重构的集体医疗服务和融资形式中的特殊义务的可能性相矛盾。