Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Rationing and life-saving treatments: should identifiable patients have higher priority?Tony Hope - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):179-185.
    Health care systems across the world are unable to afford the best treatment for all patients in all situations. Choices have to be made. One key ethical issue that arises for health authorities is whether the principle of the “rule of rescue” should be adopted or rejected. According to this principle more funding should be available in order to save lives of identifiable, compared with unidentifiable, individuals. Six reasons for giving such priority to identifiable individuals are considered. All are rejected. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • (1 other version)Commentary: Responsibility-Sensitive Healthcare Funding: Three Responses to Clavien and Hurst’s Critique.Thomas Douglas - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (2):192-195.
    Christine Clavien and Samia Hurst1 (henceforth C-H) make at least three valuable contributions to the literature on responsibility and healthcare. They offer an admirably clear and workable set of criteria for determining a patient's degree of responsibility for her health condition; they deploy those criteria to cast doubt on the view that patients with lifestyle-related conditions are typically significantly responsible for their conditions; and they outline several practical difficulties that would be raised by any attempt to introduce responsibility-sensitive healthcare funding. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark