Rationing in general practice: Commentary: Courageous attempt, but needs clarification

Abstract

The Asbury draft policy is a courageous and decent attempt at clarifying the ways that difficult moral decisions on treatment could be taken in general practice. The document is muddled, however, and Crisp et al swing between moral high handedness and hand wringing uncertainty. I do not believe that Crisp et al have sorted out what they mean when (a) they argue that they want to allow patients as much say as possible in their treatment and (b) they say that they believe a plurality of values is necessary in making rational decisions. They give an example of a patient being offered two treatments, each with different side effects, with one treatment costing slightly more …