医德与医生的动机。

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2024-09-30 DOI:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102933
Brendon P. Andrews
{"title":"医德与医生的动机。","authors":"Brendon P. Andrews","doi":"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This paper provides an institutional economics framework for analyzing medical ethics. An ethical policy partitions the set of physician actions into (un)ethical subsets, with unethical actions then unavailable. Individual physicians’ preferences over policies combined with a political process determine equilibrium constraints. I show that physicians’ concern for colleagues’ patients uniquely motivates their support for ethics which restrict behavior under strong assumptions. Without these assumptions, even identical physicians might ban actions they would otherwise select for reasons varying from protecting patients to differences in the costs of maintaining ethical policies. Interestingly, heightened altruism for colleagues’ patients makes the former reasoning less credible. Novel applications for ‘Provide Free Care to Physicians’ and ‘Duty to Treat in a Pandemic’ demonstrate: (i) rising physician income can explain long-run weakening of both formal ethics in the United States; and (ii) the duty to treat can deteriorate as fewer physicians are required to improve pandemic outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50186,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Economics","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 102933"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medical ethics and physician motivations\",\"authors\":\"Brendon P. Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhealeco.2024.102933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This paper provides an institutional economics framework for analyzing medical ethics. An ethical policy partitions the set of physician actions into (un)ethical subsets, with unethical actions then unavailable. Individual physicians’ preferences over policies combined with a political process determine equilibrium constraints. I show that physicians’ concern for colleagues’ patients uniquely motivates their support for ethics which restrict behavior under strong assumptions. Without these assumptions, even identical physicians might ban actions they would otherwise select for reasons varying from protecting patients to differences in the costs of maintaining ethical policies. Interestingly, heightened altruism for colleagues’ patients makes the former reasoning less credible. Novel applications for ‘Provide Free Care to Physicians’ and ‘Duty to Treat in a Pandemic’ demonstrate: (i) rising physician income can explain long-run weakening of both formal ethics in the United States; and (ii) the duty to treat can deteriorate as fewer physicians are required to improve pandemic outcomes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"volume\":\"98 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102933\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400078X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016762962400078X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文为分析医学伦理提供了一个制度经济学框架。伦理政策将医生的行为集合划分为(不)伦理子集,不伦理的行为则不可用。医生个人对政策的偏好与政治过程相结合,决定了均衡约束。我的研究表明,医生对同事病人的关心是他们支持道德规范的唯一动力,而道德规范会在强有力的假设条件下限制医生的行为。如果没有这些假设,即使是相同的医生也可能会因为保护病人和维护道德政策的成本差异等原因而禁止他们原本会选择的行为。有趣的是,对同事病人的高度利他主义会降低前一种推理的可信度。为医生提供免费治疗 "和 "大流行病中的治疗义务 "的新应用表明:(i) 在美国,医生收入的增加可以解释这两种正式伦理的长期削弱;(ii) 随着需要改善大流行病结果的医生人数减少,治疗义务也会恶化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Medical ethics and physician motivations
This paper provides an institutional economics framework for analyzing medical ethics. An ethical policy partitions the set of physician actions into (un)ethical subsets, with unethical actions then unavailable. Individual physicians’ preferences over policies combined with a political process determine equilibrium constraints. I show that physicians’ concern for colleagues’ patients uniquely motivates their support for ethics which restrict behavior under strong assumptions. Without these assumptions, even identical physicians might ban actions they would otherwise select for reasons varying from protecting patients to differences in the costs of maintaining ethical policies. Interestingly, heightened altruism for colleagues’ patients makes the former reasoning less credible. Novel applications for ‘Provide Free Care to Physicians’ and ‘Duty to Treat in a Pandemic’ demonstrate: (i) rising physician income can explain long-run weakening of both formal ethics in the United States; and (ii) the duty to treat can deteriorate as fewer physicians are required to improve pandemic outcomes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Health Economics
Journal of Health Economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.90%
发文量
96
审稿时长
49 days
期刊介绍: This journal seeks articles related to the economics of health and medical care. Its scope will include the following topics: Production and supply of health services; Demand and utilization of health services; Financing of health services; Determinants of health, including investments in health and risky health behaviors; Economic consequences of ill-health; Behavioral models of demanders, suppliers and other health care agencies; Evaluation of policy interventions that yield economic insights; Efficiency and distributional aspects of health policy; and such other topics as the Editors may deem appropriate.
期刊最新文献
Universal free school meals and children’s bodyweight. Impacts by age and duration of exposure Put a bet on it: Can self-funded commitment contracts curb fitness procrastination? Universal Credit: Welfare reform and mental health Health implications of housing retrofits: Evidence from a population-wide weatherization program Do mandatory waiting periods for abortion increase intimate partner violence?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1