Context and scale

Distinctions for improving debates about physician 'rationing'

Jon C Tilburt, Daniel P. Sulmasy

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word "rationing." We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number5
JournalPhilosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
Volume12
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 29 2017

Fingerprint

Caricatures
Physicians
Professional Practice
Social Responsibility
Politics
Terminology
Consensus
Rationing
Conflict (Psychology)
Resources

Keywords

  • Access to care
  • Decision making
  • Ethics
  • Professionalism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy
  • History and Philosophy of Science

Cite this

Context and scale : Distinctions for improving debates about physician 'rationing'. / Tilburt, Jon C; Sulmasy, Daniel P.

In: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, Vol. 12, No. 1, 5, 29.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

@article{0842108a0dc74dd98ee8e4c8385da719,
title = "Context and scale: Distinctions for improving debates about physician 'rationing'",
abstract = "Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word {"}rationing.{"} We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level.",
keywords = "Access to care, Decision making, Ethics, Professionalism",
author = "Tilburt, {Jon C} and Sulmasy, {Daniel P.}",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1186/s13010-017-0048-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
journal = "Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine",
issn = "1747-5341",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Context and scale

T2 - Distinctions for improving debates about physician 'rationing'

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

AU - Sulmasy, Daniel P.

PY - 2017/8/29

Y1 - 2017/8/29

N2 - Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word "rationing." We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level.

AB - Important discussions about limiting care based on professional judgment often devolve into heated debates over the place of physicians in bedside rationing. Politics, loaded rhetoric, and ideological caricature from both sides of the rationing debate obscure precise points of disagreement and consensus, and hinder critical dialogue around the obligations and boundaries of professional practice. We propose a way forward by reframing the rationing conversation, distinguishing between the scale of the decision (macro vs. micro) and its context (ordinary allocation vs. extraordinary re-allocation) avoiding the word "rationing." We propose to shift the terminology, using specific, descriptive words to defuse conflict and re-focus the debate towards substantive issues. These distinctions can clarify the real ethical differences at stake and facilitate a more constructive conversation about the clinical and social responsibilities of physicians to use resources ethically at the bedside and their role in allocating medical resources at a societal level.

KW - Access to care

KW - Decision making

KW - Ethics

KW - Professionalism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028505138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028505138&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13010-017-0048-6

DO - 10.1186/s13010-017-0048-6

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 12

JO - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

JF - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine

SN - 1747-5341

IS - 1

M1 - 5

ER -