Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:06:08.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethics in the Outpatient Setting: New Challenges and Opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Ernlé W.D. Young
Ernlé W.D. Young
Affiliation:
Co-Director of the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, and Clinical Professor of Ethics in the Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is not the outpatient setting, per se, that is presenting new challenges and opportunities to ethics consultants and ethics committees. Rather, it is the underlying reason for shifting more and more patient care from the inpatient to the outpatient setting-namely, calculations of cost-effectiveness.

Type
Special Section: Healthcare Ethics Committees and Consultants: The State of the Art
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Summer 1997 , pp. 293 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Young, EWD. The power of the nonrational in demands for marginally beneficial or useless treatments. Second Opinion 1994;20(2):95–8.Google ScholarPubMed

2. Young, EWD. Conceptual ethical issues in the shift in emphasis from inpatient to outpatient services. NCCE News 1995;9:1–2.Google Scholar

3. From Bedlam to bedsit: Care in the community is not working, and recent changes are doing nothing to improve it. Things are likely to get worse. The Economist. 2 September 1995:51–2.Google Scholar

4. Morrison, RS, et al. The inaccessibility of advance directives on transfer from ambulatory to acute care settings. JAMA 1995;274(6):478–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Good care of the dying patient. JAMA 1996;275(6):474–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients: the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 1995;274(20):1591–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Collins, FS. BRCA1—lots of mutations, lots of dilemmas. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334(3):186–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. See Annas, GJ. The promised end—constitutional aspects of physician-assisted suicide. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;335(9):683–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Callahan, D, White, M. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide: creating a regulatory Potemkin Village. University of Richmond Law Review 1996;30(1):1–83.Google ScholarPubMed