The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy
Technological progress has in recent years transformed the limits of the possible in medical therapy. However, the elevated state of sophistication of modern medical technology has brought the economists’ classic problem of scarcity in its wake as an unfortunate side product. The enormously sophisticated and complex equipment and the highly trained teams of experts requisite for its utilization are scarce resources in relation to potential demand. The administrators of the great medical institutions that preside over these scarce resources thus come to be faced increasingly with the awesome choice: Whose life to save?
KeywordsSelection System Family Role Social Contribution Artificial Kidney Hippocratic Oath
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- S. Alexander. “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” Life, LIII (November 9, 1962), 102-125.Google Scholar
- C. Doyle. “Spare-Part Heart Surgeons Worried by Their Success,” Observer (London), May 12, 1968.Google Scholar
- J. Fletcher. Morals and Medicine. London, 1955.Google Scholar
- S. Gorovitz. “Ethics and the Allocation of Medical Resources,” Medical Research Engineering, V (1966), 5–7.Google Scholar
- L. Lader. “Who Has the Right To Live?” Good Housekeeping (January, 1968), pp. 85 and 144-150.Google Scholar
- J. D. N. Nabarro, F. M. Parsons, R. Shakman, and M. A. Wilson. “Selection of Patients for Haemodialysis,” British Medical Journal (March 11, 1967), pp. 622-624.Google Scholar
- H. M. Schmeck, Jr. “Panel Holds Life-or-Death Vote in Allotting of Artificial Kidney,” New York Times, May 6, 1962, pp. 1, 83.Google Scholar
- G. E. W. Wolstenholme and M. O’Connor (eds.). Ethics in Medical Progress. London, 1966.Google Scholar