The COVID-19 pandemic has raised a host of ethical challenges, but key among these has been the possibility that health care systems might need to ration scarce critical care resources. Rationing p...

Given narrow operating margins, health care organizations are increasingly relying on philanthropy to fund operations. Since individuals provide the majority of philanthropic support, many organizations have expanded their “grateful patient fundraising” programs to include current inpatients, both established donors as well as persons of wealth. While this is legally permissible under HIPAA, it raises substantial ethical concerns for potential coercion of vulnerable patients, as well as unequal care stemming from preferential treatment and provided “amenities.” While some have drawn the analogy (...) to the additional comforts provided to first-class airline passengers, this analogy is flawed because of the potential clinical impact of the opportunities and services provided, especially to merely potential donors. From an ethical perspective, such programs should only provide non-clinical amenities to established donors, and at the same time strive for maximal transparency whereby all patients are assured of equal care and are fully informed of the specific benefits associated with any potential donation. (shrink)

: Health care reform is bottled up. Socially responsible physicians, forced to curtail care to uninsured patients, should respond with organized, open defiance, by billing the costs of the care to the accounts of patients covered under Medicaid or Medicare. Reverse cost-shifting: maybe it could work, certainly it would be justified.

Health care reform is bottled up. Socially responsible physicians, forced to curtail care to uninsured patients, should respond with organized, open defiance, by billing the costs of the care to the accounts of patients covered under Medicaid or Medicare. Reverse cost‐shifting: maybe it could work, certainly it would be justified.

Background Because opioids can suppress respiratory drive, the principle of double effect (PDE) has been used to justify their use for terminally ill patients. Recent studies, however, suggest that the risk of respiratory depression in typical end-of-life (EOL) situations may be overstated and that heightened concern for this rare occurrence can lead to inadequate treatment of pain. The purpose of this study is to examine the role of the PDE in medical school ethics education, with specific reference to its potential (...) impact on pain management at EOL. Method After obtaining institutional review board approval, an electronic survey was sent to ethics educators at every allopathic medical school in the USA. Results One-third of ethics educators felt that opioids were ‘likely’ to cause significant respiratory depression that could hasten death. Educators' opinions of opioid effects did not influence their view of the relevance of the PDE, with approximately 70% deeming it relevant to EOL care. Only 15% of ethics educators believed that associating the PDE with opioid use might discourage clinicians from optimally treating pain, out of concern for respiratory depression. Conclusion This study demonstrates that a significant minority of ethics educators believe, contrary to current evidence, that opioids are ‘likely’ to cause significant respiratory depression that could hasten death in terminally ill patients. Yet, many of those who do not feel this is likely still rely on the PDE to justify this possibility, potentially (and unknowingly) contributing to clinical misperceptions and underutilisation of opioids at EOL. (shrink)