Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:48:54.526Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Caring for “Socially Undesirable” Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Nancy S. Jecker
Nancy S. Jecker
Affiliation:
The book review editor for CQ, Associate Professor at the University of Washington's Department of Medical History and Ethics, and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Washington School of Law, Seattle.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. Bernard was a homeless man, aged 58. His medical history revealed alcohol abuse, seizure disorder, and two suicide attempts. Brought to the emergency room at a local hospital after being found “semi-comatose,” his respiratory distress led to his being intubated and placed on a ventilator. The healthcare team suspected the patient ingested antifreeze. Transferred from that hospital to the intensive care unit (ICU) of the university hospital, his diagnosis was “high osmolar gap with high-anion gap metabolic acidosis, most likely secondary to ethylene glycol ingestion and renal insufficiency.”

Type
Special Section: Can Justice Endure Healthcare Reform?: From Patient Care to Policy (and Back Again)
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , Fall 1996 , pp. 500 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. This case is adapted from an unpublished case discussion prepared by Drs. Mark J. Bliton, Stuart G. Finder, and Richard M. Zaner; it is used with permission.

2. Jecker, NS, Schneiderman, LJ. Is Dying Young Worse than Dying Old? Gerontologist 1994;34(1): 66–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Darwall, SL. Two Kinds of Respect. Ethics 1977;88(1): 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Jecker, NS, Schneiderman, LJ. Rationing and Futility. American Journal of Medicine 1992; 92: 189–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Schneiderman, LJ, Jecker, NS, Jonsen, AR. Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical Implications. Annals of Internal Medicine 1990; 112: 949–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Schneiderman, LJ, Jecker, NS. Wrong Medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

7. Alexander, S. They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies. Life Magazine. November 9, 1962. 102–25.Google Scholar

8. Fox, RC, Swazey, JP. The Courage to Fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.Google Scholar

9. Sanders, D, Dukeminier, J. Medical Advance and Legal Lag. UCLA Law Review 1968; 15:357–413, at 378.Google Scholar

10. Katz, AH, Proctor, DM. Social-Psychological Characteristics of Patients Receiving Hemodialysis Treatment for Chronic Renal Failure. Public Health Service, Kidney Disease Control Program. July 1969.Google Scholar

11. Sudnow, D. Passing On. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 101.Google Scholar

12. Kilner, J. Selecting Patients When Resources Are Limited. American Journal Public Health 1988; 78: 144–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. Kilner, JF. Who Lives, Who Dies? New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, p. 221.Google Scholar

14. Childress, J. Who Shall Live When Not All Can Live? In: Veatch, R, Branson, R, Eds., Ethics and Health Policy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Bachinger Publishing Company, 1976, p. 210.Google Scholar

15. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edition.New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p. 385.Google ScholarPubMed

16. Ramsey, P. The Patient as Person. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970, pp. 257–58.Google Scholar

17. Basson, MD. Choosing Among Candidates for Scarce Medical Resources. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1979; 4: 313–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

18. Beauchamp, T, Childress, J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 4th edition.New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 384–86.Google ScholarPubMed

19. Rescher, N. The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy. Ethics 1969; vol 69.Google Scholar

20. Winslow, GR. Triage and Justice. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982.Google Scholar

21. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

22. Levinsky, N. The Doctor's Master. New England Journal of Medicine 1984; 311: 1573–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Schneiderman, LJ, Jecker, NS. Should a Criminal Receive a Heart Transplant? Theoretical Medicine 1996; 17(1): 33–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Schneiderman, LJ, Jecker, NS. A Different Kind of ‘Prisoner's Dilemma.’ Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995; 4: 531–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Ethical Considerations in the Allocation of Organs and Other Scarce Medical Resources Among Patients. Archives of Internal Medicine 1995; 155: 29–40, p. 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26. Jecker, NS. Fidelity to Patients and Resource Constraints. In Campbell, C, Lusgtig, A, Eds., Duties to Others. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Morreim, EH. Gaming the System. Archives of Internal Medicine 1991; 151: 443–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Morreim, EH. Cost Containment: Challenging Fidelity and Justice. Hastings Center Report 1988; 18(6): 20–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Although identifying separate spheres of medical and social decisionmaking provides a helpful starting point, it is important to recognize the limits of this approach. On the one hand, social values inevitably spill over into healthcare decisions, and it would be misleading to characterize medical judgments as purely technical or value-free. One illustration of this is that the choice of how low the likelihood of benefit must be to qualify as futile depends upon a substantive value decision. Thus, the values that health professionals bring to bear in developing standards of care must ultimately be acceptable to the wider society. Social values also spill over into healthcare decisions making because the determination of medical benefit may itself be affected by a patient's social, economic, or personal circumstances. For instance, a patient who lacks social or family support may be considered less likely to benefit from certain treatments compared to a patient from a “good home” who has the benefit of a parent or spouse who can provide around the clock support. Thus, a liver transplant candidate who lacks a supportive family may be considered less likely to benefit from transplant surgery.

30. Brock, D. Ethics Committees and Cost Containment. Hastings Center Report 1990; 20(2): 29–31, p. 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed