To tell the truth: disclosing the incentives and limits of managed care. (1/105)

As managed care becomes more prevalent in the United States, concerns have arisen over the business practices of managed care companies. A particular concern is whether patients should be made aware of the financial incentives and treatment limits of their healthcare plan. At present, managed care organizations are not legally required to make such disclosures. However, such disclosures would be advisable for reasons of ethical fidelity, contractual clarity, and practical prudence. Physicians themselves may also have a fiduciary responsibility to discuss incentives and limits with their patients. Once the decision to disclose has been made, the managed care organization must draft a document that explains, clearly and honestly, limits of care in the plan and physician incentives that might restrict the care a patient receives.  (+info)

Physicians' perceptions of managed care. (2/105)

We wished to determine physicians' views and knowledge of managed care, particularly their beliefs about the provisions of managed care contracts in terms of legality and ethics. A questionnaire was sent to the 315 physicians of the medical staff of Norwalk Hospital in Connecticut regarding managed care and managed care contracts. Sixty-six responses were received within a 45-day period (20.9% return). Although only 1 of 11 contract provisions presented in one section of the questionnaire was illegal in Connecticut, a majority of physicians believed 7 of the 11 were illegal. On average, 50% of physicians polled thought each of the provisions was illegal, and a varying majority of physicians (53% to 95.4%) felt the various provisions were unethical. The majority of respondents (84.8% to 92.4%) believed that nondisclosure provisions were unethical. Ninety-seven percent thought managed care interferes with quality of care, and 72.7% of physicians felt that the managed care industry should be held legally responsible for ensuring quality of care. However, 92.4% of physicians considered themselves to be ethically responsible for ensuring quality of care. Physicians have a poor understanding of the legal aspects of managed care contracts but feel strongly that many provisions of these contracts are unethical. Physicians also believe that managed care is causing medicine to be practiced in a manner that is contrary to patients' interests and that legal recourse is needed to prevent this.  (+info)

Like marriage, without the romance. (3/105)

Physicians and philosophers have contributed to the field of medical ethics several different paradigms for the physician-patient relationship. Here I suggest another: marriage. Patients usually enter into relationships as we enter marriage: we allow our high hopes to obscure the possibility of deep disappointment. The argument of the essay encourages renewed focus on the contractual element of physician-patient relationships.  (+info)

Interpretations, perspectives and intentions in surrogate motherhood. (4/105)

In this paper we examine the questions "What does it mean to be a surrogate mother?" and "What would be an appropriate perspective for a surrogate mother to have on her pregnancy?" In response to the objection that such contracts are alienating or dehumanising since they require women to suppress their evolving perspective on their pregnancies, liberal supporters of surrogate motherhood argue that the freedom to contract includes the freedom to enter a contract to bear a child for an infertile couple. After entering the contract the surrogate may not be free to interpret her pregnancy as that of a non-surrogate mother, but there is more than one appropriate way of interpreting one's pregnancy. To restrict or ban surrogacy contracts would be to prohibit women from making other particular interpretations of their pregnancies they may wish to make, requiring them to live up to a culturally constituted image of ideal motherhood. We examine three interpretations of a "surrogate pregnancy" that are implicit in the views and arguments put forward by ethicists, surrogacy agencies, and surrogate mothers themselves. We hope to show that our concern in this regard goes beyond the view that surrogacy contracts deny or suppress the natural, instinctive or conventional interpretation of pregnancy.  (+info)

Advance directives in psychiatric care: a narrative approach. (5/105)

Advance directives for psychiatric care are the subject of debate in a number of Western societies. By using psychiatric advance directives (or so-called "Ulysses contracts"), it would be possible for mentally ill persons who are competent and with their disease in remission, and who want timely intervention in case of future mental crisis, to give prior authorisation to treatment at a later time when they are incompetent, have become non-compliant, and are refusing care. Thus the devastating consequences of recurrent psychosis could be minimised. Ulysses contracts raise a number of ethical questions. In this article the central issues of concern and debate are discussed from a narrative perspective. Ulysses contracts are viewed as elements of an ongoing narrative in which patient and doctor try to make sense of and get a hold on the recurrent crises inherent in the patient's psychiatric condition.  (+info)

Review article: Warnock and surrogacy.(6/105)


A vote for no confidence. (7/105)

This paper considers the justifications for adhering to a principle of confidentiality within medical practice. These are found to derive chiefly from respect for individual autonomy, the doctor/patient contract, and social utility. It is suggested that these will benefit more certainly if secrecy is rejected and the principle of confidentiality is removed from the area of health care.  (+info)

The validity of contracts to dispose of frozen embryos. (8/105)

The widespread abandonment of frozen embryos by the gamete providers or intentional parents urgently demands a solution. Most centres react by requiring patients to enter a prior agreement governing the future disposition of their embryos in all foreseeable circumstances. These dispositional directives are inappropriate and self defeating in the event of contingencies in which the patients remain competent to execute an updated directive. Internal and external changes may invalidate the prior directive by altering the situation as represented by the couple at the initiation of treatment to such an extent that it no longer corresponds with the actual situation at the time of the execution of the disposition. The prior agreement should only be considered binding if the agreement among the partners on a specific option was a material condition for one of the partners to start treatment.  (+info)