Search

Conflicts between physicians and families about end-of-life decisions create challenging and emotionally difficult situations. In this article, we propose a "differential diagnosis" of such conflicts, distinguishing and describing the characteristics of families, physicians, and organizations and society that contribute to the "etiology" of the situation, as well as strategies for "diagnosing" the dominant factors. As a medical model, the differential diagnosis can be a useful tool to help physicians understand and manage conflicts about end-of-life care.

Changes in the structure of the health care system have placed unprecedented stress on the surgeon-patient relationship. The essential trust placed in the surgeon by her patients has been weakened by changes in the structure and financing of the health care system. This article considers the historical and ethical foundation of the surgeon-patient relationship and proposes that the primary moral obligation of surgeons is to strengthen and earn patient trust. By improving communication skills, enhancing ethical education, serving as consistent advocates for patients, and conducting patient-focused outcome research, the surgical community can meet its moral obligation by increasing trust in the surgeon-patient relationship.

In response to three articles on managed care by Allen Buchanan, David Mechanic, and Ezekiel Emanual and Lee Goldman (this issue), I discuss doctor-patient and organization-member trust and the moral obligations of those relationships. Trust in managed care organizations (providers of and payers for health care) stands in stark contrast to the current contractual model of health insurance purchase, but is more coherent with consumer expectations and with the provider role of such organizations. Such trust is likely to differ from that between doctors and patients. Financial reimbursement systems for physicians, one example of organizational change in our health system, can be evaluated for their impact on both kinds of trust according to their intrusiveness, openness, and goals. Although involving managed care enrollees in value-laden decisions that affect them is commendable, restrictions on or regulation of physician incentive systems may be better accomplished on a national level.