Skip to main content
Log in

Physician perspectives on the ethical aspects of disability determination

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stone DA. Physicians as gatekeeper: illness certification as a rationing device. Public Policy. 1979;27:227–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Holleman WL, Holleman MC. School and work release evaluations. JAMA. 1988;260:3629–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayhew HE. Absenteeism certification. J Fam Pract. 1988;26:651–65.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Rosenstock L, Hagopian A. Ethical dilemmas in providing health care to workers. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:575–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morreim EH. Gaming the system. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:443–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Holleman WL, Edwards DC, Matson CC. Obligations of physicians to patients and third party payors. J Clin Ethics. 1994;5:113–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zinn WM. Doctors have feelings too. JAMA. 1988;259:3296–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Levinsky NG. The doctor’s master. N Engl J Med. 1984;311:1573–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3:279–86.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weir R. Truth telling in medicine. Perspect Biol Med. Autumn 1980;95–112.

  14. Bok S. Lying—Moral Choices in Public and Private Life. New York, NY: Vintage; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Abrams FR. The doctor with two heads. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:975–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cabot RC. The use of truth or falsehood in medicine; an experimental study. Am Med. 1903;5:344–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. American College of Physicians. American College of Physician Ethics Manual Part I. Ann Intern Med. 1984;101:129–37.

    Google Scholar 

  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. Morreim EH. Balancing Act. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Toulmin S. Divided loyalties and ambiguous relationships. Soc Sci Med. 1986;23:783–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gandhi MK. Non-Violent Resistance. New York, NY: Schocken; 1961.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Received from the Department of Medicine, The Cambridge Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass.

Supported in part by a grant from the Milton Fund, Harvard Medical School.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zinn, W., Furutani, N. Physician perspectives on the ethical aspects of disability determination. J Gen Intern Med 11, 525–532 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599599

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599599

Key words

Navigation