Rationing : Withholding Medical Care by Lying to the Patient
Rationing of medical care and “triage” are different.
Triage prioritizes the use of limited medical resources when resources are insufficient for immediate treatment.
Rationing is the withholding of available care for political/economic reasons.
With respect to rationing, therefore, it must be decided whether or not the patient is going to be told the truth.
The requirement of informed consent cannot cease to exist because of political/economic policy. Nevertheless the degree of informed consent may vary with the degree and type of risk. Informed consent for a blood pressure medication may not require any specific discussion if the medications are reasonably the same in term of efficacy of treatment.
The physician has an affirmative duty to raise the question and answer such questions by describing all “available” treatment.
On the other end of the spectrum, withholding information about hemodialysis in a patient with multi-organ failure requires an explanation of all risks of treatment and non-treatment alike. Life expectancy, quality of life, prolongation of the process of dying and so on must be discussed in specific detail. Religious considerations may come into play as well. For example, some religious doctrines draw a line between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” care – ordinary care being required, where extraordinary care is not.
Nor can a physician simply wait to see if the patient inquires about other treatment that may be available. The physician has an affirmative duty to raise the question and answer such questions and breaking down “available” methods of treatment.
Part II will address policy considerations and legal ramifications of rationing medical care.