Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11328/3114
Title: Does implicit healthcare rationing impose an unfair legal burden on doctors? A study of Portuguese jurisprudence
Authors: Costa, Eva Dias
Pinho, Micaela
Keywords: Allocative decision in healthcare
Implicit priority setting
Medical malpractice
Explicit priority setting
Bedside rationing
Issue Date: 15-Jun-2020
Publisher: Sage
Citation: Costa, E. D. & Pinho, M. (2020). Does implicit healthcare rationing impose an unfair legal burden on doctors? A study of Portuguese jurisprudence. Medical Law International, 1-27. Disponível no Repositório UPT, http://hdl.handle.net/11328/3114
Abstract: Healthcare rationing is inevitable, never more so than during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Portugal, rationing is largely implicit and relies too much on bedside decisions, made in stressful circumstances, involving ethical dilemmas and being prone to error. This study uses a qualitative approach by exploring the public records of Portuguese courts for malpractice suits between the years of 2008 and 2019 to ascertain whether the damage suffered by patients in these cases could in any part be attributed to a lack of resources. During this research, we found that a large number of lawsuits against doctors and hospitals might have in fact been the unfortunate result of the constraints of implicit prioritization. We concluded that lawyers and judges must be made aware of the impact of implicit rationing decisions on healthcare professionals, who are judged against a professional standard and an inverse onus rule that places on them a heavy burden of proof.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11328/3114
Appears in Collections:IJP - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais / Papers in International Journals

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
0968533220927441.pdf314.79 kBAdobe PDFView/Open    Request a copy


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.