Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

No Ultimatums for Resuscitation Policy-Reply

No Ultimatums for Resuscitation Policy-Reply Abstract We appreciate the comments by Stimler. We believe that chutzpah is a virtue. Stimler's major objections can be summarized in one question. Why should we compromise individual freedom when we have no guarantees that the greater community will benefit (ie, we will control costs) from new do-not-resuscitate policies? Stimler seems to suggest that we really do not need to set these or other limits as a matter of policy to control costs. We believe that successful health care reform, including sustained cost control, will involve limits that our society has not yet had to live with. We believe that do-not-resuscitate policies can be useful vehicles for exploring limits. Stimler suggests that our proposal is "no less than a proposition for the tyranny of the majority." We value the pluralism in our society. Society may respect preferences shared by a minority, but society should not necessarily pay the medical bills generated References 1. Menzel PT. Strong Medicine: The Ethical Rationing of Health Care . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1990. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Internal Medicine American Medical Association

No Ultimatums for Resuscitation Policy-Reply

No Ultimatums for Resuscitation Policy-Reply

Abstract

Abstract We appreciate the comments by Stimler. We believe that chutzpah is a virtue. Stimler's major objections can be summarized in one question. Why should we compromise individual freedom when we have no guarantees that the greater community will benefit (ie, we will control costs) from new do-not-resuscitate policies? Stimler seems to suggest that we really do not need to set these or other limits as a matter of policy to control costs. We believe that successful health care reform,...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/no-ultimatums-for-resuscitation-policy-reply-5RDJACXnR8
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9926
eISSN
1538-3679
DOI
10.1001/archinte.1994.00420060139017
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract We appreciate the comments by Stimler. We believe that chutzpah is a virtue. Stimler's major objections can be summarized in one question. Why should we compromise individual freedom when we have no guarantees that the greater community will benefit (ie, we will control costs) from new do-not-resuscitate policies? Stimler seems to suggest that we really do not need to set these or other limits as a matter of policy to control costs. We believe that successful health care reform, including sustained cost control, will involve limits that our society has not yet had to live with. We believe that do-not-resuscitate policies can be useful vehicles for exploring limits. Stimler suggests that our proposal is "no less than a proposition for the tyranny of the majority." We value the pluralism in our society. Society may respect preferences shared by a minority, but society should not necessarily pay the medical bills generated References 1. Menzel PT. Strong Medicine: The Ethical Rationing of Health Care . New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1990.

Journal

Archives of Internal MedicineAmerican Medical Association

Published: Mar 28, 1994

References