Kliger C H
Department of Ophthalmology, University of California-Los Angeles School of Medicine, USA.
Arch Ophthalmol. 1995 Aug;113(8):988-93. doi: 10.1001/archopht.1995.01100080038027.
To determine for a defined procedure the prevalence of the use of 15 criteria currently or historically relied on to select recipients of scarce medical resources, and to compare this use with the determinations of a report of the American Medical Association Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs identifying many of these criteria as ethically appropriate or inappropriate for such use.
Survey.
All US members of a national cornea society were sent survey instruments. Approximately 63% (214/340) responded.
Mean ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 (not important to very important) for each of the allocation criteria with regard to degree of influence on the decision to perform a corneal transplantation.
Ethically appropriate criteria tended to receive high overall ratings, and inappropriate criteria, low ratings. Three ethically inappropriate criteria received relatively high ratings: previous use of resources, perceived obstacles to treatment, and contribution of patient to disease. High percentages of respondents applied ratings other than not important to all criteria deemed ethically inappropriate.
Certain ethically inappropriate criteria may have been viewed as influencing graft survival and thus thought to have ethically appropriate aspects, mitigating to some degree the aforementioned three ratings. Nonetheless, the study supports the need for standard setting and educational efforts about criteria for the allocation of medical resources to ensure that ethically inappropriate criteria are consciously excluded from decision making and to stimulate discussion and raise consciousness regarding this important issue.
针对特定程序,确定目前或过去用于选择稀缺医疗资源接受者的15项标准的使用情况,并将这种使用情况与美国医学协会伦理与司法事务委员会一份报告中的判定结果进行比较,该报告指出其中许多标准在伦理上适用于或不适用于此类用途。
调查。
向全国角膜协会的所有美国成员发送了调查问卷。约63%(214/340)的人做出了回应。
就对角膜移植决策的影响程度而言,对每项分配标准在1至5分(从不重要到非常重要)的量表上的平均评分。
在伦理上合适的标准往往获得较高的总体评分,而不合适的标准则获得较低的评分。三项在伦理上不合适的标准获得了相对较高的评分:资源的既往使用情况、感知到的治疗障碍以及患者对疾病的促成因素。高比例的受访者对所有被视为在伦理上不合适的标准给出了非不重要的评分。
某些在伦理上不合适的标准可能被视为影响移植物存活,因此被认为在伦理上有合适的方面,在一定程度上减轻了上述三项评分的影响。尽管如此,该研究支持制定标准以及开展关于医疗资源分配标准的教育工作的必要性,以确保在决策过程中自觉排除在伦理上不合适的标准,并促进对此重要问题的讨论并提高认识。