Although most theorists of healthcare rationing argue that rationing, including rationing that takes place in the physician–patient relationship is unavoidable, some health professionals strongly disagree. In a recent essay, Vegard Bruun Wyller argues that bedside rationing is immoral and thoroughly at odds with a sound view of the physician–patient relationship. We take Wyller to be an articulate exponent of the reluctance to participate in rationing found among some clinicians. Our essay attempts to refute the five crucial premises of his argument (...) yet build on his genuine insights. In our analysis, Wyller’s critique of bedside rationing is instructive both for harbouring some very common misconceptions that must be exposed and refuted, but also for offering important words of caution. In particular, bedside rationing must be performed in ways that do not harm the physician–patient relationship. Read irenically, Wyller’s critique is a reminder of what must not be lost in our painful endeavour to update the ethics of medicine to encompass the unavoidability of rationing. (shrink)

Background:There is little research comparing clinicians’ and managers’ views on priority settings in the healthcare services. During research on two different qualitative research projects on healthcare prioritisations, we found a striking difference on how hospital executive managers and clinical healthcare professionals talked about and understood prioritisations.Aim:The purpose of this study is to explore how healthcare professionals in mental healthcare and somatic medicine prioritise their care, to compare different ways of setting priorities among managers and clinicians and to explore how moral (...) dilemmas are balanced and reconciled.Research design and participants:We conducted qualitative observations, interviews and focus groups with medical doctors, nurses and other clinical members of the interdisciplinary team in both somatic medical and mental health wards in hospitals in Norway. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.Ethical considerations:Basic ethical principles for research ethics were followed. The respondents signed an informed consent for participation. They were assured anonymity and confidentiality. The studies were approved by relevant ethics committees in line with the Helsinki Convention.Findings:Our findings showed a widening gap between the views of clinicians on one hand and managers on the other. Clinicians experienced a threat to their autonomy, to their professional ideals and to their desire to perform their job in a professional way. Prioritisations were a cause of constant concern and problematic decisions. Even though several managers understood and empathised with the clinicians, the ideals of patient flow and keeping budgets balanced were perceived as more important.Discussion:We discuss our findings in light of the moral challenges of patient-centred individual healthcare versus demands of distributive justice from healthcare management.Conclusion:The clinicians’ ideals of autonomy and good medical and nursing care for the individual patients were perceived as endangered. (shrink)

We have studied ethical considerations of care among health professionals when treating and setting priorities for elderly patients in Norway. The views of medical doctors and nurses were analysed using qualitative methods. We conducted 21 in depth interviews and 3 focus group interviews in hospitals and general practices. Both doctors and nurses said they treated elderly patients different from younger patients, and often they were given lower priorities. Too little or too much treatment, in the sense of too many interventions (...) and too much drugs, combined with too little care and comfort, was admitted as a relatively frequent yet unwanted consequence of the way clinical priorities were set for elderly patients. This was explained in terms of elderly patients not tolerating the same treatment as younger patients, and questions were raised about the quality of life of many elderly patients after treatment. These explanations were frequently referred to as medically sound decision making. Other explanations had little to do with medically sound decisions. These often included deep frustration with executive guidelines and budget constraints. (shrink)