{"title":"资源分配——治疗还是不治疗,谁来回避这个问题?","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":79630,"journal":{"name":"Hospital ethics","volume":"9 6","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allocation of resources--to treat or not to treat, and who shall beg the question?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"volume\":\"9 6\",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hospital ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Allocation of resources--to treat or not to treat, and who shall beg the question?
Two separate clusters of events in recent months have spurred public discussions over the questions of how and to what degree the public should be involved in resource allocation decisions. In England, a group of physicians unilaterally decided to deny bypass surgery to heavy smokers, and in the United States, uninsured parents of conjoined twins elected to seek separation of the twins despite heavy odds against their survival, raising questions of whether health care reform will stymie such decisions in the future.