资源分配——治疗还是不治疗,谁来回避这个问题?

Hospital ethics Pub Date : 1993-11-01
{"title":"资源分配——治疗还是不治疗,谁来回避这个问题?","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":79630,"journal":{"name":"Hospital ethics","volume":"9 6","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allocation of resources--to treat or not to treat, and who shall beg the question?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"volume\":\"9 6\",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近几个月发生的两起事件引发了公众对公众应如何以及在多大程度上参与资源分配决策的讨论。在英国,一群医生单方面决定拒绝对重度吸烟者进行搭桥手术,在美国,没有保险的连体双胞胎父母选择分离双胞胎,尽管他们的生存几率很小,这引发了医疗改革是否会阻碍未来此类决定的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Allocation of resources--to treat or not to treat, and who shall beg the question?

Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信