Zinn W, Furutani N
Department of Medicine, Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 1996 Sep;11(9):525-32. doi: 10.1007/BF02599599.
To evaluate physician's attitudes and responses to the ethical conflicts involved in certifying patients for welfare disability.
A mailed questionnaire survey that used case scenarios and general questions.
Massachusetts.
A random sample of 347 internists and family practitioners and a convenience sample of 100 neighborhood health center physicians from three large cities (NHC sample). The response was 53% and 76%, respectively.
Physician responses to case scenarios representing difficult decisions about patient requests for welfare disability determination and general questions about the welfare disability system. Physicians reported a willingness to exaggerate clinical data to help a patient they thought deserving of welfare disability benefits (39% random sample; 56% NHC sample). Physicians did not report confidence in their ability to determine who was disabled as measured by a visual analog scale (4.4 cm random sample, 4.6 cm NHC sample; 0 = very confident, 10 = very uncertain). They did feel burdened by their participation in welfare disability determinations when compared with other administrative chores as measured on a visual analog scale (2.8 cm random sample, 2.5 cm NHC sample; 0 = more burdensome, 10 = less burdensome). Eighty-two percent of the random sample physicians and 86% of the NHC sample physicians thought that filling out a disability form could adversely affect the physician-patient relationship, and 62% of physicians in each sample thought that it represented a conflict of interest. Eighty percent of physicians in both samples thought that it would be better if an independent group of physicians were designated to determine disability.
Physicians perceive an ethical bind as they try to satisfy the conflicting demands of patients and the welfare disability system. They will frequently decide in favor of their patient's interests. This has implications for welfare policy planners.
评估医生对为患者开具福利残疾证明所涉及的伦理冲突的态度及应对方式。
采用病例情景和一般性问题的邮寄问卷调查。
马萨诸塞州。
从347名内科医生和家庭医生中随机抽取的样本,以及来自三个大城市的100名社区健康中心医生的便利样本(社区健康中心样本)。回复率分别为53%和76%。
医生对代表患者福利残疾认定艰难决策的病例情景以及关于福利残疾系统的一般性问题的回复。医生报告称,愿意夸大临床数据以帮助他们认为应获得福利残疾福利的患者(随机样本中为39%;社区健康中心样本中为56%)。通过视觉模拟量表测量,医生对自己确定谁为残疾的能力缺乏信心(随机样本为4.4厘米,社区健康中心样本为4.6厘米;0表示非常有信心,10表示非常不确定)。与其他行政事务相比,通过视觉模拟量表测量,他们确实感到参与福利残疾认定有负担(随机样本为2.8厘米,社区健康中心样本为2.5厘米;0表示负担更重,10表示负担更轻)。随机样本中的82%的医生和社区健康中心样本中的86%的医生认为填写残疾表格可能会对医患关系产生不利影响,每个样本中62%的医生认为这代表利益冲突。两个样本中80%的医生认为,如果指定一个独立的医生小组来确定残疾情况会更好。
医生在试图满足患者和福利残疾系统相互冲突的要求时,察觉到伦理困境。他们经常会做出有利于患者利益的决定。这对福利政策规划者有启示意义。