PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

W K Mariner

Publications and source records attributed to W K Mariner.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Physician assisted suicide and the Supreme Court: putting the constitutional claim to rest.

Like the debate about many controversial questions of ethics and medical care in America, public debate about physician assisted suicide became focused on questions of constitutional law. On June 26, 1997, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected any constitutional right of terminally ill patients to physician assisted suicide. An analysis of the Court's reasoning reveals that its decisions resolved only a narrow constitutional question that affects relatively few people--mentally competent, terminally ill patients who wish to hasten their imminent deaths by having a physician prescribe medication that they intend to use to commit suicide. Although suicide is not a crime, states remain free to prohibit assisted suicide. One consequence of the Court's decisions may be renewed debate on state laws. A more productive result would be to address the broader public health concerns that gave rise to support for physician assisted suicide--inadequate care for the terminally ill and prevention of suicide.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed1996

Liability for managed care decisions: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the uneven playing field.

As managed care organizations expand their programs of quality assurance and physician evaluation, more medical malpractice lawsuits may be brought against managed care organizations on the ground that, like hospitals, they are legally responsible for negligent corporate acts that injure patients. However, the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) shields managed care organizations from liability when they are part of an employee group health plan governed by ERISA. Unlike patients with other types of insurance, patients in ERISA health plans do not have a malpractice remedy for a managed care organization's negligence. A few federal appeals courts recently recognized that ERISA plans can be vicariously liable for their physicians' medical malpractice, but only if the physician is the plan's employee or agent. Yet ERISA still prohibits negligence claims against ERISA health plans for injuries resulting from denial of plan benefits, failure to use qualified physicians, utilization review, or improper plan administration. Current managed care operations do not neatly distinguish between administering benefits and controlling quality of care. Neither should the law. ERISA should be amended to provide employees with the same remedies that patients in non-ERISA plans enjoy.

Compensation and Redress↗
PubMed1995

Rationing health care and the need for credible scarcity: why Americans can't say no.

With adequate cost containment unlikely in the foreseeable future, health care use will have to be curtailed, ideally with open and explicit criteria for equitably allocating resources or rationing. Yet, consensus on any such criteria appears remote because Americans cannot say no to health care. Americans may refuse to accept rationing for two reasons. The absence of any global limitation on health care resources may encourage patients to believe that health care resources are not scarce and do not need to be rationed. A belief in vitalism--that everyone is morally entitled to unlimited longevity and good health--may discourage setting limits on one's own care. Together, these characteristics may foster the belief that denials of health care services, especially by health insurers, are arbitrary or unfair refusals to pay for existing resources and not a necessary method of rationing scarce resources. If this hypothesis is true, Americans are unlikely to achieve consensus on any equitable allocation of health care unless they face an actual shortage (credible scarcity) of health care resources that makes it necessary to ration care.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1995

AIDS phobia, public health warnings, and lawsuits: deterring harm or rewarding ignorance?

Courts in more than a dozen states have decided cases in which a person has claimed money damages for his or her fear of getting acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Although most courts have rejected such claims in the absence of actual exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), their reasoning has varied slightly from state to state. This article argues that negligence law should not permit people who are HIV negative to recover damages for an unfounded fear of AIDS. Public health statements intended to educate the public about preventing HIV transmission may have encouraged some fear-of-AIDS lawsuits against health care practitioners. Although well intentioned, such statements have been used to justify inappropriate restrictions on medical practice and disclosure of a practitioner's HIV status. To avoid such misuse, such statements should be revised to make clear that the way in which procedures are performed, not who performs them, determines HIV transmission.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed1994

Patients' rights to care under Clinton's Health Security Act: the structure of reform.

Like most reform proposals, President Clinton's proposed Health Security Act offers universal access to care but does not significantly alter the nature of patients' legal rights to services. The act would create a system of delegated federal regulation in which the states would act like federal administrative agencies to carry out reform. To achieve uniform, universal coverage, the act would establish a form of mandatory health insurance, with federal law controlling the minimum services to which everyone would be entitled. Because there is no constitutionally protected right to health care and no independent constitutional standard for judging what insurance benefits are appropriate, the federal government would retain considerable freedom to decide what services would and would not be covered. If specific benefits are necessary for patients, they will have to be stated in the legislation that produces reform.

Facility Regulation and Control↗
PubMed1994

Patients' rights after health care reform: who decides what is medically necessary?

President Clinton's Health Security Act entitles individuals not to unlimited health care, but to a package of defined insurance benefits with specific exclusions and limitations. Like virtually all reform proposals, it would limit covered benefits to services that are medically necessary. If health reform is to control costs, not all medically necessary care can be covered. In the absence of a generally accepted definition of medical necessity, many services will not be guaranteed to all patients unless they are explicitly covered in the federal legislation or regulations. Without a federal definition of medical necessity or regulations listing covered services, health insurance plans will retain the primary authority to decide what is medically necessary for their patient subscribers.

Cost Control↗