OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in attitudes concerning prioritisation in health care held by doctors, nurses, local politicians and the general public. METHODS: Four groups were established: a population sample of 2000 subjects, aged 18-70 years; a random sample of 1500 doctors of working age; a random sample of 1000 nurses of working age; and a sample of 2200 politicians involved in health and social care administration, mostly at the municipal level (altogether 6700 subjects). The main questionnaire contained, among other things, a list of 12 statements concerning ethical decisions regarding prioritisation in health care. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. RESULTS: Most respondents in all the groups felt able to express an opinion on the statements. Despite considerable professional and cultural differences between groups, the views were generally similar. On the whole, respondents supported liberal policies in which the community took responsibility for subsidising health care. When differences between groups occurred, it was usually the doctors who held discordant views. Doctors were less inclined to consider a patient's economic status as a determinant of priority for treatment than the other three groups. Both doctors and nurses were less punitive towards patients with self-induced diseases. And doctors and politicians were more likely to feel further cuts in health care expenditure were possible than was true for nurses and the public. CONCLUSIONS: While considerable uniformity of opinion exists on ethical issues of prioritisation between the principal interested parties, the views of doctors differ substantially on some matters. If prioritisation was left entirely to doctors, health care provision would not reflect the views of other groups in some important ways.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in attitudes concerning prioritisation in health care held by doctors, nurses, local politicians and the general public. METHODS: Four groups were established: a population sample of 2000 subjects, aged 18-70 years; a random sample of 1500 doctors of working age; a random sample of 1000 nurses of working age; and a sample of 2200 politicians involved in health and social care administration, mostly at the municipal level (altogether 6700 subjects). The main questionnaire contained, among other things, a list of 12 statements concerning ethical decisions regarding prioritisation in health care. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. RESULTS: Most respondents in all the groups felt able to express an opinion on the statements. Despite considerable professional and cultural differences between groups, the views were generally similar. On the whole, respondents supported liberal policies in which the community took responsibility for subsidising health care. When differences between groups occurred, it was usually the doctors who held discordant views. Doctors were less inclined to consider a patient's economic status as a determinant of priority for treatment than the other three groups. Both doctors and nurses were less punitive towards patients with self-induced diseases. And doctors and politicians were more likely to feel further cuts in health care expenditure were possible than was true for nurses and the public. CONCLUSIONS: While considerable uniformity of opinion exists on ethical issues of prioritisation between the principal interested parties, the views of doctors differ substantially on some matters. If prioritisation was left entirely to doctors, health care provision would not reflect the views of other groups in some important ways.
Authors: Neale Smith; Craig Mitton; Stirling Bryan; Alan Davidson; Bonnie Urquhart; Jennifer L Gibson; Stuart Peacock; Cam Donaldson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 2.655