Literature DB >> 9385706

Moral judgments in the rationing of health care resources: a comparative study of clinical health professionals.

L W Foster1, L J McLellan.   

Abstract

Social workers, physicians, and nurses from a major urban teaching hospital were assessed and compared regarding their attitudes toward the rationing of health care. Responses to eighteen statements of considered moral judgments in the rationing of health care resources were analyzed in terms of levels of agreement with each. All three professional groups rejected rationing based on patient age and socioeconomic worth. However, social workers and physicians were more likely than nurses to consider such factors as cost-benefit ratios, quality of life, relative strength of a patient's moral claim, and scarcity of resources in rationing decisions. Study findings appear to portray social workers and physicians as being more utilitarian and nurses more egalitarian in rationing decisions. Implications for practice in a managed care environment are presented.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9385706     DOI: 10.1300/J010v25n04_02

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Work Health Care        ISSN: 0098-1389


  2 in total

1.  Testing a multi-group model of culturally competent behaviors among underrepresented nurse practitioners.

Authors:  Ramona Benkert; Thomas Templin; Stephanie Myers Schim; Ardith Z Doorenbos; Sue Ellen Bell
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 2.228

2.  Comparison of ethical judgments exhibited by clients and ethics consultants in Japan.

Authors:  Noriko Nagao; Yasuhiro Kadooka; Atsushi Asai
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.652

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.