Cargando…

Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting

A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual phys...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tilburt, Jon, Brody, Baruch
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5869454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27125989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103071
_version_ 1783309290941972480
author Tilburt, Jon
Brody, Baruch
author_facet Tilburt, Jon
Brody, Baruch
author_sort Tilburt, Jon
collection PubMed
description A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual physicians to individual patients because their population-based focus sets a tone that seems to emphasise responsibilities for groups of patients by groups of physicians in an organisation. Prior to undertaking a cogent debate about the fate and normative weight of special obligations and a traditional ethic for contemporary healthcare, we need a deeper examination of what the traditional ethic of special obligations really means. Here we offer a conception of ‘doubly distributed’ special obligations. Physicians and similarly minded healing professionals abiding by a traditional ethic have always spread their devotion and attention across multiple patients and have shared responsibilities with physician and non-physician colleagues in much the same way devoted parents have frequently distributed their special obligations across multiple children and across multiple parents. By taking up the extended analogy of parent we argue that doubly distributing special obligations need not contradict the possibility of special obligations in restructured collective forms of healthcare delivery and financing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5869454
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58694542018-03-28 Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting Tilburt, Jon Brody, Baruch J Med Ethics Viewpoint A traditional ethic of medicine asserts that physicians have special obligations to individual patients with whom they have a clinical relationship. Contemporary trends in US healthcare financing like bundled payments seem to threaten traditional conceptions of special obligations of individual physicians to individual patients because their population-based focus sets a tone that seems to emphasise responsibilities for groups of patients by groups of physicians in an organisation. Prior to undertaking a cogent debate about the fate and normative weight of special obligations and a traditional ethic for contemporary healthcare, we need a deeper examination of what the traditional ethic of special obligations really means. Here we offer a conception of ‘doubly distributed’ special obligations. Physicians and similarly minded healing professionals abiding by a traditional ethic have always spread their devotion and attention across multiple patients and have shared responsibilities with physician and non-physician colleagues in much the same way devoted parents have frequently distributed their special obligations across multiple children and across multiple parents. By taking up the extended analogy of parent we argue that doubly distributing special obligations need not contradict the possibility of special obligations in restructured collective forms of healthcare delivery and financing. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-03 2016-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC5869454/ /pubmed/27125989 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103071 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Viewpoint
Tilburt, Jon
Brody, Baruch
Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title_full Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title_fullStr Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title_full_unstemmed Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title_short Doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
title_sort doubly distributing special obligations: what professional practice can learn from parenting
topic Viewpoint
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5869454/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27125989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103071
work_keys_str_mv AT tilburtjon doublydistributingspecialobligationswhatprofessionalpracticecanlearnfromparenting
AT brodybaruch doublydistributingspecialobligationswhatprofessionalpracticecanlearnfromparenting