Scarce Resource Allocation Decisions: Issues of Physician Conflict and Liability

By Shaul, Randi Zlotnik; Mendelssohn, David C. | Humane Health Care International, Spring 1997 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Scarce Resource Allocation Decisions: Issues of Physician Conflict and Liability


Shaul, Randi Zlotnik, Mendelssohn, David C., Humane Health Care International


Correspondence and reprint requests: David C. Mendelssohn, 200 Elizabeth Street, 13 Eaton 239, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C4, Canada.

Physicians face conflicting priorities working in the complex Canadian health-care system of the 1990s. Their traditional role as patient advocate has been part of the art of medicine at least since the time of Hippocrates, whose oath states explicitly "that into whatsoever house I shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of my power, holding myself far aloof from wrong... I will exercise my art solely for the cure of my patients..." This time-honored focus on patient advocacy is threatened when physicians assume responsibility for controlling health care expenditures, or when resource constraints limit their ability to provide reasonable access to necessary services.

Exactly such a dilemma was faced by nephrologists at The Toronto Hospital in 1994. This paper will use Toronto's limited access to dialysis as a model to illustrate these conflicts, and to offer ethical and legal analysis that may interest physicians in other sectors who face similar challenges.

Background

There is a well documented chronic shortage of hemodialysis resources in the Toronto region. (1) By the spring of 1994 (and even as this is written in mid 1996) all adult hospitals in the region were operating at over 100% of capacity. At the same time, the referral of additional patients requiring dialysis continued to fuel the predictable rate of growth of 10% per year.

Nephrologists at The Toronto Hospital (TTH), the site of the largest program in the region, perceived that the Ministry of Health would not condone capping of the dialysis program even when it became clear that further growth might compromise patient care. (2) When all outpatient hemodialysis positions at TTH were filled, patients requiring this treatment were increasingly admitted to inpatient beds, to positions normally reserved for hospitalized patients. During the spring of 1994, this option also became saturated so that physicians had to make daily triage decisions about which inpatients might be stable enough to miss a regularly scheduled treatment because of lack of equipment or nurses. (3) All inpatients requiring hemodialysis were receiving sub-optimal care; in fact, one patient died of a hyperkalemic cardiac arrest as a direct result of a decision to postpone her hemodialysis so that another patient, deemed to be more in need on that particular day, could receive it.

What Are the Conflicts?

The problems described above high-light many of the dilemmas faced by physicians, in many different settings, who are trying to live up to the ideals enshrined in the Canada Health Act, (4) such as the provision of "universal" and "reasonable access" to "comprehensive" quality care.

Provincial governments in Canada have reacted to the combined pressures of economic recession, massive public debt, and falling revenues from both taxation and federal transfer payments, with measures to reduce public spending in many sectors, including health care. Often these macroeconomic decisions have unforeseen consequences, because hospitals then must reassess priorities as they attempt to cope with reduced funding levels. High technology, high cost programs like dialysis must compete within the hospital for resources that are funded from a common global budget. Administrative decisions to allocate insufficient resources to a program like dialysis eventually trickle down to the physician-patient interface, where individual treatment decisions must be made.

The primary conflicts for the physician working with insufficient resources are between advocating for the best possible care for a particular patient, the duty to other current patients, and the responsibility to provide for new referrals and future patients. Allocation decisions that have potentially negative consequences pose crucial questions at the interface of medicine, politics, ethics and law.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Scarce Resource Allocation Decisions: Issues of Physician Conflict and Liability
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?