Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
When I was an intern, I saw a patient whose heart transplant had failed. She was presenting for assessment for a second transplant. The heart had failed because of continued intravenous drug abuse. She was in a desperate state. “Are you going to retransplant her if she is a drug addict?” I asked my registrar. “We can't deny her a transplant for social reasons. But we can because her prognosis is poor.”
Issues of justice weave throughout this month's issue of the Journal.
In the Feature article, Bærøe and Bringedal address the issue of how just allocation of resources should take account of socioeconomic status, (see page 526). Higher socioeconomic status (SES) patients have better health and life expectancy, and use more health services. Bærøe and Bringedal ask: should clinicians give priority to individual patients with low SES in order to enhance health equity? They distinguish between four versions …
Linked Articles
- Global medical ethics
- Feature article
- Clinical ethics
- Global medical ethics
Other content recommended for you
- Just health: on the conditions for acceptable and unacceptable priority settings with respect to patients' socioeconomic status
- Ethical and legal implications of the risks of medical tourism for patients: a qualitative study of Canadian health and safety representatives’ perspectives
- Am I my brother’s gatekeeper? Professional ethics and the prioritisation of healthcare
- Just health: replies and further thoughts
- Human rights and the national interest: migrants, healthcare and social justice
- Principles of justice in health care rationing
- Ethics briefings
- Role, structure and effects of medical tourism in Africa: a systematic scoping review protocol
- A world away and here at home: a prioritisation framework for US international patient programmes
- The virtues (and vices) of the four principles