Sometimes physicians lie to third-party payers in order to grant their patients treatment they would otherwise not receive. This strategy, commonly known as gaming the system, is generally condemned for three reasons. First, it may hurt the patient for the sake of whom gaming was intended. Second, it may hurt other patients. Third, it offends contractual and distributive justice. Hence, gaming is considered to be immoral behavior. This article is an attempt to show that, on the contrary, gaming may sometimes (...) be a physician's duty. Under specific circumstances, gaming may be necessary from the viewpoint of the internal morality of medicine. Moreover, the objections against gaming are examples of what we call the idealistic fallacy, that is, the fallacy of passing judgments in a nonideal world according to ideal standards. Hence, the objections are inconclusive. Gaming is sometimes justified, and may even be required in the name of beneficence. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 3, Page 17-19, March 2012.

Werner et al. (2004) provide an interesting look at the degree to which misrepresentation is condoned by both parties to doctor-patient relationships. We feel that it would be useful, however, to s...

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 3, Page 15-17, March 2012.

Clinicians in contemporary practice are getting accustomed to their clinical decision making being constantly questioned: by health plans, clinic and hospital administrators, and by patients. Share...