Abstract
ETHICS AND LEGISLATORS often figure in the news, usually because the latter have abused the former. But in two western states, elected officials attempting to solve the tough problem of guaranteed access to medical care are coming to grips with ethics in its root meaning: moral duty and obligation. Enthusiastically supported by the Oregon Medical Association, the state has enacted legislation aimed at using Oregon's health care resources more justly. It will provide services considered basic for a greater number of people on Medicaid while curtailing payment for other types of service deemed less necessary or of benefit to only a few. This type of arrangement has been denoted rationing, and been piously denounced by policymakers who say, Any legislation concerning who gets what service is a terrible idea. It means health care rationing will be aimed at poor people, and that's not fair. But what really isn't fair, says
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
