Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:58:13.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whom to Treat First, and How Much is Enough?: Ethical Dilemmas that Physical Therapists Confront as They Compare Individual Patients' Needs for Treatment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Ruth B. Purtilo
Ruth B. Purtilo
Affiliation:
Creighton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When there is a scarcity of resources (therapists, modalities), the physical therapist must make decisions about whom to treat and why. This paper discusses ethical dilemmas confronting the therapist and addresses solutions based on approaches of procedural justice and distributive justice.

Type
Special Section: Assessing The Technology Of Physical Therapy
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , Winter 1992 , pp. 26 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

1.Brody, B. A.Justice in the allocation of public resources to disabled citizens. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1988, 69, 23–26.Google Scholar
2.Caplan, A., Callahan, D., & Hass, J.Ethical and policy issues in rehabilitation medicine. Hastings Center Report, 1987, 17(suppl.), 1–20.Google Scholar
3.Care, N.Career choice. Ethics, 1984, 94, 283–302.Google Scholar
4.Cassel, C., & Purtilo, R. Justice and the allocation of health care in an aging society. In Cassel, C., Riesenberg, D., Sorenson, C. B., & Walsh, J. R. (eds.) Pathy, J. & Finucane, P. (eds.), Geriatric medicine, 2nd ed.New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, 615–622.Google Scholar
5.Coy, J. A.Autonomy-based informed consent: Ethical implications for patient noncompliance. Physical Therapy, 1989, 69, 826–34.Google Scholar
6.Durst, T.Physical therapists: Green light on direct access. Hospitals, 1987, 61, 113–15.Google Scholar
7.Myrdal, A.Alva Myrdal report: Toward equality. Stockholm: Bok Forlaget, 1971, 16.Google Scholar
8.Purtilo, R.Informed consent: Ethical and legal issues for physical therapists. Physical Therapy, 1984, 64, 934–38.Google Scholar
9.Purtilo, R.Ethical issues in teamwork: The context of rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1988(suppl.), 8–12.Google Scholar
10.Purtilo, R.Saying “no” to patients for cost-related reasons: Alternatives for the physical therapist Physical Therapy, 1988, 68, 1243–47.Google Scholar
11.Purtilo, R.Setting limits on intervention: When is beneficence beneficial? Medical Ethics, 1989, 4, 1–10.Google Scholar
12.Purtilo, R. Incentives for getting well. The “good life” of the individual. In Health professional/patient interaction, 4th ed.Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1990, 81–95.Google Scholar
13.Rothberg, J. S. Rehabilitation team practice. In Lecca, P. J. & McNeill, J. S. (eds.), Interdisciplinary team practice, issues and trends. New York: Praeger, 1985, 23–40.Google Scholar