The expressions ‘high quality care’ and ‘low quality care’ are cognitive and linguistic artefacts that help to structure people’s lives and thinking; for example, moves are now afoot internationally to pay bonuses to health professionals for delivering high quality care. United States programmes, most conspicuously, are assuming that high quality care can be validly distinguished from low quality care, and incentivised through bonuses. This distinction is always at least implicit, for high quality care has no meaning without low quality care. (...) Through a ‘deconstructionist reading,’ this article discusses limitations of categorising the quality of care as either high or low. The limitations of this ‘binary opposition’ can include a lack of defining attributes; vagueness and fuzziness at the ‘boundaries’ between high quality care and low quality care; concealment of quality as a continuum; and use of the binary opposition to effect social order and control. Health policy implications of our analysis are discussed. Drawing upon the general medical services contract in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach to overcoming the oversimplification and imprecision that categorisation tends to produce. (shrink)

American doctors in the 1990s are being asked to serve as "double agents," weighing competing allegiances to patients' medical needs against the monetary costs to society. This situation is a reaction to rapid cost increases for medical services, themselves the result of the haphazard development since the 1920s of an inherently inflationary, open-ended system for funding and delivering health care. The answer to an inefficient system, however, is not to stint on care, but rather to restructure the system to remove (...) the inflationary pressures. As long as we are spending enormous resources on an inherently inefficient and inflationary system we cannot justify asking doctors to withhold beneficial care to save money for third-party payers. Doing so serves a largely political agenda and endangers the patient-centered ethic that is central to medicine. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: To study and report the attitudes of patients and general practitioners (GPs) concerning the obligation of doctors to act for the good of their patients, and to provide a practical account of beneficence in general practice. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews administered to GPs and patients. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Participants randomly recruited from an age and gender stratified list of GPs in a geographically defined region of South Australia. The sample comprised twenty-one general practitioners and seventeen patients recruited by participating GPs. (...) RESULTS: In practice, acting for the good of the patient not only accommodates the views of patients and GPs on expertise and knowing best, but also responds to the particular details of the clinical situation. Patients had a complex understanding of the expertise necessary for medical practice, describing a contextual domain in which they were expert, and which complemented the scientific expertise of their GPs. General practitioners identified multiple sources for their expertise, of which experience was the most significant. The role of the GP included responding to individual patients and particular clinical problems and ranged from the assumption of responsibility through to the proffering of medical advice. CONCLUSION: This study found that GPs acting for the good of their patients covered a variety of GP actions and patient preferences. Beneficence was not justified by presumed patient vulnerability or the inability of patients to understand medical problems, but furthered through a recognition of the different areas of expertise contributed by both parties to the consultation. (shrink)