Ethical Responsibility of Health Professionals in Allocating Resources As defined by Scheunemann and White, rationing in healthcare is the distribution of scarce resources in a way that necessitates denying some individuals treatments that carry potential benefits (Scheunemann). Rationing in healthcare settings is inevitable because resources are finite. In this paper, the focus will be on allocation of resources in situations that involve shortages of a drug and the ethical responsibilities of physician’s in making decisions regarding which patients will receive the scarce drug. There are three main reasons for drug shortages in the United States: difficulties at manufacturing facilities of sterile injectable medications, setbacks in the
…show more content…
Rosoff of Duke University Medical Center emphasize 5 components: transparency, relevance, appeals, enforcement, and fairness. In short, transparency is to make the evaluations public rather than in secret; relevance is to ensure the allocation scheme is appropriate in situations; appeals are processes for individuals that feel they have not been treated fairly to be reviewed; enforcement is the implementation of the principles; and fairness is the idea that there are no “special” people that should be treated differently. It is the ethical responsibility of physicians in the United States to use these guidelines in making decisions about which patients will be excluded from receiving the treatment. Using a guided set of principles, like those laid out by Rosoff, is advantageous over a simple first-come, first-served or lottery system. A random selection process holds the danger that a person for whom the drug has little efficacy would continue to receive the drug over another who could get substantial benefit (Rosoff). While the above standards emphasize important aspects to be considered, it is also significant to note the criteria that should not be taken into account in making allocation decisions. Ability to pay for the drug, ethnicity of the patient, age, as well as a person’s “social worth” are factors that should not play a role in the physician’s decision about who should be given the limited medication …show more content…
One option is to lower the dose for patients who demonstrate similar efficacy at a lower dose. Another option would be to shorten the length of the treatment for individuals in cases where a shorter treatment would not pose any harm (Rosoff). These alternative plans still require physician’s to make careful decisions with the intention of not compromising the well being of a patient. Upholding the key ethical principles of beneficence and justice becoming challenging to physicians in making these decisions. Tensions arise for physicians, as they need to make important decisions about the treatment of patients in the most ethical
Rosoff of Duke University Medical Center emphasize 5 components: transparency, relevance, appeals, enforcement, and fairness. In short, transparency is to make the evaluations public rather than in secret; relevance is to ensure the allocation scheme is appropriate in situations; appeals are processes for individuals that feel they have not been treated fairly to be reviewed; enforcement is the implementation of the principles; and fairness is the idea that there are no “special” people that should be treated differently. It is the ethical responsibility of physicians in the United States to use these guidelines in making decisions about which patients will be excluded from receiving the treatment. Using a guided set of principles, like those laid out by Rosoff, is advantageous over a simple first-come, first-served or lottery system. A random selection process holds the danger that a person for whom the drug has little efficacy would continue to receive the drug over another who could get substantial benefit (Rosoff). While the above standards emphasize important aspects to be considered, it is also significant to note the criteria that should not be taken into account in making allocation decisions. Ability to pay for the drug, ethnicity of the patient, age, as well as a person’s “social worth” are factors that should not play a role in the physician’s decision about who should be given the limited medication …show more content…
One option is to lower the dose for patients who demonstrate similar efficacy at a lower dose. Another option would be to shorten the length of the treatment for individuals in cases where a shorter treatment would not pose any harm (Rosoff). These alternative plans still require physician’s to make careful decisions with the intention of not compromising the well being of a patient. Upholding the key ethical principles of beneficence and justice becoming challenging to physicians in making these decisions. Tensions arise for physicians, as they need to make important decisions about the treatment of patients in the most ethical