If when Amanda was given a thorough exam and it was decided, not based on insurance coverage, that there appeared to be nothing wrong with her heart, then no it would not be immoral to send her to her own resources given that the bill for her care at the current facility would cost her a lot of money. Yes it would be morally wrong to send her away without knowing for sure her situation. A hospital may claim to be for profit and claim they have the right to refuse services, but I am sure they receive tax savings from the state and city where they are located. They also are privileged to have physicians that trained with physicians that did not receive any money for the shadowing experience they offered during their residency. Insurance companies need to cover a person in an emergency situation at ANY facility they end up at. One of the practices I believe a hospital should have in place is NOT having the patient’s financial and insurance information readily available. Then treatment would not be based on money in their hands it would be based on based on the life in their hands.
The issue in this case is a patient, Amanda R., is uninsured and needs medical care. She went to a hospital, since the situation was an emergeny, regardless of her insurance status. The hospital has an obligation to treat her, get her stablized then either release or move her elsewhere. It may not be the most ethcially sound plan o faction but in more cases than not it happens to those under insured or with out insurance totally.
The medical staff gave her a examination before sending her home. Since her her chest pains stopped and her breathing difficulty disappeared suggesting to go to her own doctor for a thorough examination fulfills their contract. Hospitals receive funding from the state to care for indigents who need medical care. It would be ethically wrong to allow patient's financial status or insurance information to determine any neccessary medical procedure.
I do not think the hospital has done anything wrong in this case. Since her pains had disappeared and she didn't appear to be in immediate danger they can send her home and not be morally responsible. Her situation is unfortunate but that isn't the hospitals fault and they have many patients to see and care for.
If when Amanda was given a thorough exam and it was decided, not based on insurance coverage, that there appeared to be nothing wrong with her heart, then no it would not be immoral to send her to her own resources given that the bill for her care at the current facility would cost her a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteYes it would be morally wrong to send her away without knowing for sure her situation. A hospital may claim to be for profit and claim they have the right to refuse services, but I am sure they receive tax savings from the state and city where they are located. They also are privileged to have physicians that trained with physicians that did not receive any money for the shadowing experience they offered during their residency.
Insurance companies need to cover a person in an emergency situation at ANY facility they end up at. One of the practices I believe a hospital should have in place is NOT having the patient’s financial and insurance information readily available. Then treatment would not be based on money in their hands it would be based on based on the life in their hands.
The issue in this case is a patient, Amanda R., is uninsured and needs medical care. She went to a hospital, since the situation was an emergeny, regardless of her insurance status. The hospital has an obligation to treat her, get her stablized then either release or move her elsewhere. It may not be the most ethcially sound plan o faction but in more cases than not it happens to those under insured or with out insurance totally.
ReplyDeleteThe medical staff gave her a examination before sending her home. Since her her chest pains stopped and her breathing difficulty disappeared suggesting to go to her own doctor for a thorough examination fulfills their contract. Hospitals receive funding from the state to care for indigents who need medical care. It would be ethically wrong to allow patient's financial status or insurance information to determine any neccessary medical procedure.
ReplyDeleteI do not think the hospital has done anything wrong in this case. Since her pains had disappeared and she didn't appear to be in immediate danger they can send her home and not be morally responsible. Her situation is unfortunate but that isn't the hospitals fault and they have many patients to see and care for.
ReplyDelete