Andrews Brendon P
University of Alberta, Canada.
J Health Econ. 2024 Dec;98:102933. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102933. Epub 2024 Sep 30.
This paper provides an institutional economics framework for analyzing medical ethics. An ethical policy partitions the set of physician actions into (un)ethical subsets, with unethical actions then unavailable. Individual physicians' preferences over policies combined with a political process determine equilibrium constraints. I show that physicians' concern for colleagues' patients uniquely motivates their support for ethics which restrict behavior under strong assumptions. Without these assumptions, even identical physicians might ban actions they would otherwise select for reasons varying from protecting patients to differences in the costs of maintaining ethical policies. Interestingly, heightened altruism for colleagues' patients makes the former reasoning less credible. Novel applications for 'Provide Free Care to Physicians' and 'Duty to Treat in a Pandemic' demonstrate: (i) rising physician income can explain long-run weakening of both formal ethics in the United States; and (ii) the duty to treat can deteriorate as fewer physicians are required to improve pandemic outcomes.
本文提供了一个用于分析医学伦理的制度经济学框架。一项伦理政策将医生的行为集划分为(不)符合伦理的子集,不符合伦理的行为随后不可用。个体医生对政策的偏好与政治过程相结合决定了均衡约束。我表明,在强假设下,医生对同事患者的关注独特地促使他们支持限制行为的伦理规范。没有这些假设,即使是相同的医生也可能因从保护患者到维持伦理政策成本差异等各种原因而禁止他们原本会选择的行为。有趣的是,对同事患者更高的利他主义使得前一种推理的可信度降低。“为医生提供免费护理”和“大流行期间的治疗义务”的新应用表明:(i)医生收入的增加可以解释美国正式伦理规范长期以来的弱化;(ii)随着改善大流行结果所需医生数量减少,治疗义务可能会恶化。