The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Acute Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;46(12):797-802. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106853. Epub 2020 Oct 7.
To practise 'fairly and justly' a clinician must balance the needs of both the many and the few: the individual patient in front of them, and the many unseen patients in the waiting room, and in the county. They must consider the immediate clinical needs of those in the present, and how their actions will impact on patients. The good medical practice guidance 'Make the care of your patient your first concern' provides no guidance on how doctors should act when they care for multiple patients with conflicting needs. Moreover, conflicting needs extend far past simply those between different patients. At an organisational level, financial obligations must be balanced with clinical ones; the system must support those who work within it in a variety of roles; and, finally, in order for a healthcare service to be sustainable, the demands of current and future generations must be balanced.The central problem, we propose, is that there is no shared philosophical framework on which the provision of care or the development of health policy is based, nor is there a practical, fair and transparent process to ensure that the service is equipped to deal justly with new challenges as they emerge. Many philosophers have grappled with constructing a set of principles which would lead to a 'good' society which is just to different users; prominent among them is Rawls.Four important principles can be derived using a Rawlsian approach: equity of access, distributive justice, sustainability and openness. However, Rawls' approach is sometimes considered too abstract to be applied readily to policymaking; it does not provide clear guidance for how individuals working within existing institutions can enact the principles of justice. We therefore combine the principles derived from Rawls with Scanlonian contractualism: by demanding that decisions are made in a way which cannot be 'reasonably rejected' by different stakeholders (including 'trustees' for those who cannot represent themselves), we ensure that conflicting needs are considered robustly.We demonstrate how embedding this framework would ensure just policies and fair practice. We illustrate this by using examples of how it would help prevent injustice among different socioeconomic groups, prevent intergenerational injustice and prevent injustice in a crisis, for example, as we respond to new challenges such as COVID-19.Attempts to help individual doctors practise fairly and justly throughout their professional lives are best focused at an institutional or systemic level. We propose a practical framework: combining Scanlonian contractualism with a Rawlsian approach. Adopting this framework would equip the workforce and population to contribute to fair policymaking, and would ultimately result in a healthcare system whose practice and policies-at their core-were just.
为了“公平公正”地行医,临床医生必须平衡多数人和少数人的需求:既要考虑眼前患者的需求,也要考虑候诊室和整个县未就诊患者的需求。他们必须考虑当前患者的直接临床需求,以及他们的行为将如何影响患者。“关爱患者是医生首要职责”的良好医疗实践指南并未就医生在照顾有冲突需求的多名患者时应如何行动提供指导。此外,冲突需求远不止于不同患者之间的需求。在组织层面,财务义务必须与临床需求相平衡;该系统必须支持在各种角色中工作的人;最后,为了使医疗服务能够持续,当前和未来几代人的需求必须得到平衡。我们提出的核心问题是,没有一个共同的哲学框架来指导医疗服务的提供或卫生政策的制定,也没有一个实际、公平和透明的流程来确保服务有能力公正应对新出现的挑战。许多哲学家都在努力构建一套原则,以建立一个对不同用户公平的“好”社会;其中最著名的是罗尔斯。采用罗尔斯的方法可以得出四项重要原则:公平获取、分配正义、可持续性和开放性。然而,罗尔斯的方法有时被认为过于抽象,难以直接应用于决策制定;它并没有为在现有机构内工作的个人如何实施正义原则提供明确指导。因此,我们将罗尔斯的原则与斯坎伦的契约主义相结合:通过要求决策以不同利益相关者(包括无法代表自己的人的“受托人”)无法“合理拒绝”的方式做出,我们确保充分考虑了相互冲突的需求。我们展示了如何将这一框架嵌入其中,以确保公正的政策和公平的实践。我们通过使用示例来说明如何帮助防止不同社会经济群体之间的不公正、防止代际不公正以及在危机中防止不公正,例如,我们应对 COVID-19 等新挑战,来展示这一点。帮助医生在整个职业生涯中公平公正行医的尝试最好集中在机构或系统层面。我们提出了一个实用框架:将斯坎伦的契约主义与罗尔斯的方法相结合。采用这种框架将使员工和民众能够为公平的决策制定做出贡献,并最终使医疗保健系统的实践和政策从核心上实现公正。