Reply to Burdick: Constraining Physician Discretion

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 9 (2):280-283 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In I argued that the UNOS policy of placing acute liver failure patients (ALF patients) above chronic liver failure patients (CLF patients) on the transplant list fails to satisfy the principles of utility and justice that ostensibly guide UNOS allocation policy. Further, I argued that physician discretion in evaluating ALF and CLF patients should be expandedthe distinction between acute liver failure and progression of chronic liver disease

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

A Critique of UNOS Liver Allocation Policy.Kenneth Einar Himma - 1999 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (3):311-320.
A critique of unos liver allocation policy.Himma Ke - 1999 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8 (3):311-320.
Living Donors for Fulminant Hepatic Failure in Children.Maja Segedi, Genieve Dhani, Vicky L. Ng & David Grant - 2016 - In David Rodríguez-Arias, Aviva Goldberg & Rebecca Greenberg, Ethical Issues in Pediatric Organ Transplantation. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 19-41.
Responsibility and Priority in Liver Transplantation.Walter Glannon - 2009 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18 (1):23-35.
Notes from an Organ Recipient: Once is Enough.Annie Klebahn Condon - 2022 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 31 (3):400-402.
The Case of the Criminal Liver.Ruchika Mishra - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):143-143.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
73 (#803,951)

6 months
12 (#1,000,674)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references