Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 9, pp 525–532 | Cite as

Physician perspectives on the ethical aspects of disability determination

  • William Zinn
  • Nobuyuki Furutani
Original Articles

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physician’s attitudes and responses to the ethical conflicts involved in certifying patients for welfare disability.

DESIGN: A mailed questionnaire survey that used case scenarios and general questions.

SETTING: Massachusetts.

PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 347 internists and family practitioners and a convenience sample of 100 neighborhood health center physicians from three large cities (NHC sample). The response was 53% and 76%, respectively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physician responses to case scenarios representing difficult decisions about patient requests for welfare disability determination and general questions about the welfare disability system. Physicians reported a willingness to exaggerate clinical data to help a patient they thought deserving of welfare disability benefits (39% random sample; 56% NHC sample). Physicians did not report confidence in their ability to determine who was disabled as measured by a visual analog scale (4.4 cm random sample, 4.6 cm NHC sample; 0=very confident, 10=very uncertain). They did feel burdened by their participation in welfare disability determinations when compared with other administrative chores as measured on a visual analog scale (2.8 cm random sample, 2.5 cm NHC sample; 0=more burdensome, 10=less burdensome). Eighty-two percent of the random sample physicians and 86% of the NHC sample physicians thought that filling out a disability form could adversely affect the physician-patient relationship, and 62% of physicians in each sample thought that it represented a conflict of interest. Eighty percent of physicians in both samples thought that it would be better if an independent group of physicians were designated to determine disability.

CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceive an ethical bind as they try to satisfy the conflicting demands of patients and the welfare disability system. They will frequently decide in favor of their patient’s interests. This has implications for welfare policy planners.

Key words

disability evaluation welfare medical ethics physician-patient relationship physician’s role 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Stone DA. Physicians as gatekeeper: illness certification as a rationing device. Public Policy. 1979;27:227–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Novack DH, Detering BJ, Arnold R, Forrow L, Ladinsky M, Pezzullo JC. Physicians’ attitudes toward using deception to resolve difficult ethical problems. JAMA. 1989;261:2980–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holleman WL, Holleman MC. School and work release evaluations. JAMA. 1988;260:3629–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayhew HE. Absenteeism certification. J Fam Pract. 1988;26:651–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nichols M, Dunlop J, Barkan S. National General Assistance Survey, 1992. Washington, DC: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenstock L, Hagopian A. Ethical dilemmas in providing health care to workers. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:575–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morreim EH. Gaming the system. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:443–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holleman WL, Edwards DC, Matson CC. Obligations of physicians to patients and third party payors. J Clin Ethics. 1994;5:113–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zinn WM. Doctors have feelings too. JAMA. 1988;259:3296–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levinsky NG. The doctor’s master. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:1573–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3:279–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Menzel PT. Double agency and the ethics of rationing health care: a response to Marcia Angell. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3:287–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weir R. Truth telling in medicine. Perspect Biol Med. Autumn 1980;95–112.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bok S. Lying—Moral Choices in Public and Private Life. New York, NY: Vintage; 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abrams FR. The doctor with two heads. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:975–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cabot RC. The use of truth or falsehood in medicine; an experimental study. Am Med. 1903;5:344–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American College of Physicians. American College of Physician Ethics Manual Part I. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:129–37.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual Part I&U. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:245–52, 327–35.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morreim EH. Balancing Act. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Toulmin S. Divided loyalties and ambiguous relationships. Soc Sci Med. 1986;23:783–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gandhi MK. Non-Violent Resistance. New York, NY: Schocken; 1961.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Blackwell Science, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Zinn
    • 1
  • Nobuyuki Furutani
    • 2
  1. 1.Primary Care CenterThe Cambridge HospitalCambridge
  2. 2.Department of General Internal MedicineJikei University School of MedicineChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations