Abstract

The allocation strategies during challenging situations among the different social groups is based on 9 principles which can be considered either individually: sickest first, waiting list, prognosis, youngest first, instrumental values, lottery, monetary contribution, reciprocity, and individual behavior, or in combination; youngest first and prognosis, for example. In this study, we aim to look into the most important prioritization principles amongst different groups in the Jordanian population, in order to facilitate the decision-making process for any potential medical crisis. We conducted an online survey that tackled how individuals would deal with three different scenarios of medical scarcity: (1) organ donation, (2) limited hospital beds during an influenza epidemic, and (3) allocation of novel therapeutics for lung cancer. In addition, a free-comment option was included at the end of the survey if respondents wished to contribute further. Seven hundred and fifty-four survey responses were gathered, including 372 males (49.3%), and 382 females (50.7%). Five groups of individuals were represented including religion scholars, physicians, medical students, allied health practitioners, and lay people. Of the five surveyed groups, four found “sickest-first” to be the most important prioritization principle in all three scenarios, and only the physicians group documented a disagreement. In the first scenario, physicians regarded “sickest-first” and “combined-criteria” to be of equal importance. In general, no differences were documented between the examined groups in comparison with lay people in the preference of options in all three scenarios; however, physicians were more likely to choose “combination” in both the second and third scenarios (OR 3.70, 95% CI 1.62–8.44, and 2.62, 95% CI 1.48–4.59; p < 0.01), and were less likely to choose “sickest-first” as the single most important prioritization principle (OR 0.57, CI 0.37–0.88, and 0.57; 95% CI 0.36–0.88; p < 0.01). Out of 100 free comments, 27 (27.0%) thought that the “social-value” of patients should also be considered, adding the 10th potential allocation principle. Our findings are concordant with literature in terms of allocating scarce medical resources. However, “social-value” appeared as an important principle that should be addressed when prioritizing scarce medical resources in Jordan.

Highlights

  • Ethical dilemmas have always been ingrained in the practice of medicine, despite the belief that the right to maximum healthcare should not be compromised [1]

  • In a study of 1,267 participants responding to an online questionnaire in which they were asked to prioritize patients in 3 limited-resource settings: scarce donor organs, hospital beds during an epidemic, and joint replacements [19]; lay people believed that the “sickest-first” and “firstcome, first served” were of top priority. Both general practitioners and medical students believed that patients should be ranked based on prognosis, or a combination of criteria leaving the degree of sickness as their third priority option

  • The objective of our study is to explore the moral intuitions held by the different members of the Jordanian society on several topics that have arisen in light of limited medical resources

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Ethical dilemmas have always been ingrained in the practice of medicine, despite the belief that the right to maximum healthcare should not be compromised [1]. Conflicts and war, and natural disasters are all settings where medical resources can become scarce, posing several challenges [5], albeit resources can be scarce and the decisions to prioritize them can still be faced in daily practice in most health systems. These challenges often leave healthcare providers in conundrums they cannot solve without jeopardizing their commitment to an ethical framework of fairness, equity, and equality [6, 7]. A few presented the perception of healthcare workers and the general public on this topic, and whether individual characteristics should be taken into consideration as part of the decision-making process [19,20,21,22,23,24]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call