Search

In the medical practice in China, giving and taking "red envelopes" (monetary gifts) is a common phenomenon although few openly admit it. This paper, based on our empirical study including data collected from interviews and questionnaires with medical professionals and patients, attempts to explore why "red envelopes" have become a serious problem in the physician-patient relationship and how the situation can be improved. Previous studies show that scholars tend to correlate the spread of "red envelopes" in health care sector to the commercialization trend, the general erosion of traditional values, and the lowering of the moral level in the medical field. However, in this paper, the authors argue that medical professionals' choice of taking "red envelopes" is actually more a way to compensate for their problematic self-image and marred dignity in real practice. Medical professionals in China as a whole are in an embarrassing situation where the work pressure and income, and the sense of pride that used to be part of their profession are not comparable to each other. Under this circumstance, we believe that the effective way to deal with the "red envelopes" issue does not lie solely in introducing more stringent regulations or granting medical professionals higher payments, but rather in protecting and enhancing the professional dignity of all those working in healthcare. And on top of that, there must also be effort to cultivate a more favorable moral environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How health care providers are paid affects how medicine is practiced. It is thus important to assess provider payment models not only from the economic perspective but also from the ethical perspective. China recently started to reform the provider payment model in the health care system from fee-for-service to case-based payment. This paper aims to examine this transition from an ethical perspective. We collected empirical studies on the impact of case-based payment in the Chinese health care system and applied a systematic ethical matrix that integrates clinical ethics and public health ethics to analyze the empirical findings. We identified eleven prominent ethical issues related to case-based payment. Some ethical problems of case-based payment in China are comparable to ethical problems of managed care and diagnosis related groups in high-income countries. However, in this paper we discuss in greater detail four specific ethical issues in the Chinese context: professionalism, the patient-physician relationship, access to care and patient autonomy. Based on the analysis, we cautiously infer that case-based payment is currently more ethically acceptable than fee-for-service in the context of China, mainly because it seems to lower financial barriers to access care. Nonetheless, it will be difficult to justify the implementation of case-based payment if no additional measures are taken to monitor and minimize its existing negative ethical implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Newborn infants are among those most severely affected by humanitarian crises. Aid organisations increasingly recognise the necessity to provide for the medical needs of newborns, however, this may generate distinctive ethical questions for those providing humanitarian medical care. Medical ethical approaches to neonatal care familiar in other settings may not be appropriate given the diversity and volatility of humanitarian disasters, and the extreme resource limitations commonly faced by humanitarian aid missions. In this paper, we first systematically review existing guidelines relating to the treatment and resuscitation of newborns in humanitarian crises, finding little substantive ethical guidance for those providing humanitarian healthcare. We next draw on paradigm cases and published literature to identify and describe some of the major ethical questions common to these settings. We divide these questions into quality of life considerations, allocation of limited resources, and conflicting cultural norms and values. We finally suggest some preliminary recommendations to guide ethical decision-making around resuscitation of newborns and withdrawal of treatment in humanitarian settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study uses a qualitative empirical method to define Health Research for Development. This project explores the perspectives of stakeholders in an international health research partnership operating in Ghana and Tanzania.Methods: We conducted 52 key informant interviews with major stakeholders in an international multicenter partnership between GlaxoSmithKline (GSK, Vaccine Developer) and the global health nonprofit organisation PATH and its Malaria Vaccine Initiative program (PATH/MVI, Funder-Development Partner), (RTS, S) (NCT00866619). The respondents included teams from four clinical research centres (two centres in Ghana and two in Tanzania) and various collaborating partners. This paper analyses responses to the question: What is Health Research for Development?Results: Based on the stakeholders' experience the respondents offered many ways of defining Health Research for Development. The responses fell into four broad themes: i) Equitable Partnerships; ii) System Sustainability; iii) Addressing Local Health Targets, and iv) Regional Commitment to Benefit Sharing.Conclusion: Through defining Health Research for Development six key learning points were generated from the four result themes: 1) Ensure there is local research leadership working with the collaborative partnership, and local healthcare system, to align the project agenda and activities with local research and health priorities; 2) Know the country-specific context - map the social, health, legislative and political setting; 3) Define an explicit development component and plan of action in a research project; 4) Address the barriers and opportunities to sustain system capacity. 5) Support decentralised health system decision-making to facilitate the translation pathway; 6) Govern, monitor and evaluate the development components of health research partnerships. Overall, equity and unity between partners are required to deliver health research for development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International research is an essential means of reducing health disparities between and within countries and should do so as a matter of global justice. Research funders from high-income countries have an obligation of justice to support health research in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) that furthers such objectives. This paper investigates how their current funding schemes are designed to incentivise health systems research in LMICs that promotes health equity. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were performed with 16 grants officers working for 11 funders and organisations that support health systems research: the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, Comic Relief, Doris Duke Foundation, European Commission, International Development Research Centre, Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Research Council of Norway, Rockefeller Foundation, UK Department of International Development, UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust. Thematic analysis of the data demonstrates their funding schemes promote health systems research with (up to) five key features that advance health equity: being conducted with worst-off populations, focusing on research topics that advance equitable health systems, having LMIC ownership of the research agenda, strengthening LMIC research capacity, and having an impact on health disparities. The different types of incentives that encouraged proposed projects to have these features are identified and classified by their strength (strong, moderate, weak). It is suggested that research funders ought to create and maintain funding schemes with strong incentives for the features identified above in order to more effectively help reduce global health disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on two years' ethnographic research on doctor-patient relations in urban China, this paper examines the causes of patients' mistrust of physicians. I identify the major factors at the societal, institutional, and interpersonal levels that lead to patients' mistrust of physicians. First, I set the context by describing the extent of mistrust at the societal level. Then, I investigate the institutional sources of mistrust. I argue that the financing mechanism of public hospitals and physicians' income structures are the most crucial factors in inducing patients' mistrust. Hospitals' heavy reliance on self-finance has basically caused public hospitals to run like private hospitals, resulting in blatant conflicts of interest between hospitals and patients. Related to this is physicians' reliance on bonuses and commissions as part of their regular incomes, which has inevitably resulted in overtreatment and, hence, mistrust from the patients. At the interpersonal level, I describe how individual physicians' attitudes toward and interaction with patients may also affect patients' sense of trust or mistrust in physicians. In conclusion, I discuss the ethical implications of the mistrust problem, and suggest changes at the institutional and interpersonal levels to mitigate the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]