Book chapter

Rationing by clinical judgment

Published inFair resource allocation and rationing at the bedside, Editors Danis, M., Hurst, S.A., Fleck, L.M., Forde, R. & Slowther, A.
PublisherOxford : Oxford University Press
Publication date2014

While rationing by clinical judgment is controversial, its acceptability partly depends on how it is practiced. Here, the authors consider rationing by clinical judgment in three different circumstances that represent increasingly wider circles of resource pools in which the rationing decision takes place: triage during acute shortage, comparison to other potential patients in a context of limited but not immediately strained resources, and determination of whether expected benefit of an intervention is deemed sufficient to warrant its cost by reference to published population-based thresholds. Building on notions of procedural justice, an analytical framework that includes six minimal requisites is applied in order to facilitate fair bedside rationing: (1) a closed system that offers reciprocity, (2) attention to general concerns of justice, (3) respect for individual variations, (4) application of a consistent process, (5) explicitness, and (6) review of decisions. The process could be monitored for its applicability and appropriateness.

  • Rationing
  • Clinical judgment
  • Triage
  • Constrained resources
  • Procedural justice
  • Reciprocity
  • Variation
  • Explicitness
  • Review
NotePart Four : Strategies for promoting fair bedside rationing
Citation (ISO format)
HURST, Samia, MAURON, Danis. Rationing by clinical judgment. In: Fair resource allocation and rationing at the bedside. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2014. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199989447.001.0001

Technical informations

Creation06/27/2016 8:42:00 AM
First validation06/27/2016 8:42:00 AM
Update time03/15/2023 12:29:14 AM
Status update03/15/2023 12:29:14 AM
Last indexation08/30/2023 8:35:06 AM
All rights reserved by Archive ouverte UNIGE and the University of GenevaunigeBlack