health care ethics essay

Log in using your username and password

Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
Latest content
Current issue
JME Commentaries
BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Edited by K O’Rourke. Georgetown University Press, 2000, £15.75, pp 323. ISBN 0878408029

editor Primer for Health Care Ethics: Essays for a Pluralistic Society

This is a thoroughly revised and expanded edition of a book originally published in 1994. It consists of a series of clear and thoughtful short essays, grounded in real cases in health care ethics. The range of coverage is extensive—from informed consent, through futile therapy, genetic testing, organ donation, the use of fetal tissue in research, physician assisted suicide, and many other issues, to early delivery of anencephalic infants. The discussions of individual cases, although necessarily brief, are always clear and well informed, and in general lay out the ethical issues and the various options fairly rather than being strongly directive, partisan, or one-sided.

The book has little to say about the philosophical and theological underpinning of bioethics; one must turn elsewhere for that. The book and all the authors adopt a mainstream Roman Catholic stance. They rely, they say, “on a very definite concept of the human person and some precise values and goals of the healing relationship that we believe have brought out the best in people in the health care professions over the centuries” (page xii). Their arguments, they believe, are founded on reason and natural law as well as on faith. At key points recent Roman Catholic teaching on such matters as the evil of abortion in virtually all circumstances, even rape, is affirmed, as is the conviction that an embryo from the moment of conception has the status of a human being rather than a potential human being. There are numerous impressive examples of the vigour and cogency of discussions within that tradition of the ethical acceptability of specific forms of treatment.

The book directly addresses the injustices generated by the fact that in the United States some four million people do not have proper medical cover, and by the invasion of health care by the market: “the only way to solve the health care problems in our society is to insist continually that we must have universal health care coverage. Until that goal is accomplished, we are fighting bush fires and ignoring the major conflagration” (page 256). This is also a reminder, however, that to a certain extent this book addresses specifically American issues, or matters which are treated in a rather different way in the United States from elsewhere because of legislation and court decisions. But for the most part the problems with which it wrestles are common to the major industrial societies.

Two final comments. First, the book claims to be “essays for a pluralistic society”. It may fairly be regarded as a very useful and irenic Roman Catholic contribution to a very complex and confusing debate about how we can agree on the principles and practices of health care in societies which are deeply fragmented morally. This book does not wrestle with the underlying problem of ethical pluralism, but its tone is constructive and positive rather than hectoring, arrogant, or aggressive. Secondly, the book presents itself as a “primer”, but denies that it is intended to be a textbook. Probably its real value is as a resource and a stimulus for conscientious and reflective practitioners, and for students of ethics who are anxious to ground their studies in real situations.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Healthcare Ethics During a Pandemic

As clinicians and support personnel struggle with their responsibilities to treat during the current COVID-19 pandemic, several ethical issues have emerged. Will healthcare workers and support staff fulfill their duty to treat in the face of high risks? Will institutional and government leaders at all levels do the right things to help alleviate healthcare workers risks and fears? Will physicians be willing to make hard, resource-allocation decisions if they cannot first husband or improvise alternatives?

With our healthcare facilities and governments unprepared for this inevitable disaster, front-line doctors, advanced providers, nurses, EMS, and support personnel struggle with acute shortages of equipment—both to treat patients and protect themselves. With their personal and possibly their family’s lives and health at risk, they must weigh the option of continuing to work or retreat to safety. This decision, made daily, is based on professional and personal values, how they perceive existing risks—including available protective measures, and their perception of the level and transparency of information they receive. Often, while clinicians get this information, support personnel do not, leading to absenteeism and deteriorating healthcare services. Leadership can use good risk communication (complete, widely transmitted, and transparent) to align healthcare workers’ risk perceptions with reality. They also can address the common problems healthcare workers must overcome to continue working (ie, risk mitigation techniques). Physicians, if they cannot sufficiently husband or improvise lifesaving resources, will have to face difficult triage decisions. Ideally, they will use a predetermined plan, probably based on the principles of Utilitarianism (maximizing the greatest good) and derived from professional and community input. Unfortunately, none of these plans is optimal.

INTRODUCTION

Disasters recur on a regular basis. In any disaster, and especially in those caused by disease, the public expects healthcare professionals to be on the front lines. Indeed, most healthcare professionals expect that of themselves and their colleagues. In most disasters, and certainly during the current COVID-19 pandemic, frontline healthcare professionals face two key ethical issues: (1) whether to respond despite the risks involved; and (2) how to distribute scarce, lifesaving medical resources. In this paper, I discuss how healthcare professionals weigh risk factors related to their response and the actions the healthcare community can take, including proper communication and mitigating responder concerns, to maximize and maintain our caregiver workforce. I then very briefly discuss the ethics of scarce resources and suggest options, such as recalling retired clinicians to service, improvisation, and husbanding available resources to mitigate rationing.

ETHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT PANDEMIC

As COVID-19 devastates the world, bringing another feared and inevitable highly infectious pandemic to the current generation of healthcare professionals, we face a slew of ethical dilemmas. Some of our colleagues around the globe reportedly have already had to make resource-allocation decisions about which patients to treat. Others have had to struggle to provide lesser degrees of (“degraded”) care. We have little direct control over these situations. Most of the world failed to recognize the existential threat of this new coronavirus early enough to fully prepare institutional, local, regional, national, and international mobilization and response. Political expediency, hubris, scientifically ignorant leaders, and incomplete information led to this inadequate advance planning by minimizing the threat when it appeared, further delaying vital public health action.

At this point, the most vital ethical decision in our war against an unseen enemy is the one over which each of us has direct control: Will we stay to help in the fight?

Most disaster plans depend on physicians, nurses, support staff, and prehospital personnel to maintain healthcare’s frontlines during crises. Yet planners cannot automatically assume that all healthcare workers will respond. Will our hospitals and clinics have enough physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, technicians, maintenance, and administrative staff to keep the doors open, the computers running, the linens clean, the lights on, and the facilities safe? Will our 9-1-1 systems still be able to dispatch medics, firefighters, and police? That depends on the iterative, possibly hourly or daily, decisions that each affected individual repeatedly makes.

Such decisions are not purely ethical, but rather are complex determinations based on religious and personal values, family and community responsibilities, health and financial stability, and risk assessment. In 2001, for example, the AMA Code of Ethics was modified from “solemnly commit[ing] ourselves to apply our knowledge and skills when needed, though doing so may put us at risk” 1 to “physicians should balance immediate benefits to individual patients with ability to care for patients in the future.” 2 The American College of Emergency Physicians, meanwhile, stated in its 2017 Code of Ethics for Emergency Physicians: “Courage is the ability to carry out one’s obligations despite personal risk or danger. Emergency physicians exhibit courage when they assume personal risk to provide steadfast care for all emergency patients, including those who are agitated, violent, infectious, and the like.” 3

Despite these professional ethical codes, nothing—either morally or legally—compels a response to risk-prone situations. Other than military personnel, no one is required to respond to potentially life-threatening emergencies. Professional oaths and codes may serve to guide practitioners, but they are not absolutes. The factors that guide people to respond are very personal; healthcare workers’ individual behavior and that of our organizational, professional and political leadership can modify those factors to increase the number that are willing to respond. 4

The moral backbone of medical professionals—a duty to put the needs of patients first—may be tested as they determine whether to stay and carry out their professional roles or to step back and decrease their own personal risks. Whether providers will stay depends on their own risk assessment and value system . The “duty to treat” when one’s health, life, or personal well-being is threatened is not absolute. In a risk-prone situation, each of us will prioritize our personal and professional values, those traits in ourselves that we consider to be our fundamental driving forces. “Most clinicians first assess the risks to our own and to our family’s life, health, and safety. We may then factor in, to varying degrees, our religious beliefs and personal motivations, all colored by elements of our personality. Next, we may consider professional factors, including the precepts in our healthcare profession’s oaths and codes, as well as other ethical and religious dicta to which we subscribe. Most clinicians will focus on their concrete professional responsibilities.” 5 These professional factors include:

Supporting/assuming the same risk as colleagues
Collegial pressure/consequences of not helping
Augmenting community welfare
Fulfilling public expectation and trust
Using societally underwritten special training and professional status
Fulfilling implied consent to help those in need (social contract)

Emergency physicians may also feel that in these situations they are compelled to use their special knowledge about triage, allocation of scarce resources (eg, vaccines, prophylactic or treatment medications, or intensive care unit [ICU] ventilators), public health mandates (eg, isolation or quarantine, or mandatory vaccination), and the use of altered standards of care. 4 , 6

RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION

Risk assessment.

When preparing for a disaster, planners should consider not how they expect people to respond, but rather why they are likely to respond. 7 The risks to physicians and other healthcare providers’ will vary by the nature of the causative agent, the provider’s activities and underlying health, and the protections offered and used. People decide which risks to accept or to avoid based on their own perceptions of the source and quality of the information they receive. 8 , 9 Quick, emotional impressions often precede and guide “rational” risk appraisals. 10 Provider and population perception of their risk from COVID-19 will probably not be congruent with reality . In part, this will be due to the discordant messages from many senior politicians and other officials, but also will be influenced by the real-time updates in scientific knowledge about the disease, its transmission, and possible protective measures.

Risk Communication and Mitigation

In crises, individuals must balance good information from valid media, government, and other sources to help identify the actual risks to themselves and their loved ones. Providing the best current information about the risks as well as the opportunities to assist during a crisis will help healthcare professionals make defensible decisions in disaster settings. 5 Transparent and consistent information generates the trust necessary for both caregivers and the population to develop a reasonable risk assessment during conditions of uncertainty. 11 Issuing incomplete or conflicting information, as was done during the first months of the COVID-19 outbreak, caused many providers to make decisions to respond based on heated emotions and inaccurate risk perceptions. People have been shown to naturally exaggerate the risk of phenomena that are unknown or “dreaded,” such as those with delayed, irreversible or manmade effects; those that have new, unknown, or unobservable risks; those that are global; and those that are “hyped” by the media. 5

Historical precedent and the nature of the medical profession demonstrate that we will have enough physicians and, probably, nurses to treat patients. Other professional and non-professional staff needed to keep healthcare institutions operating may not be as willing to risk themselves. Recent history suggests that we probably will not have enough support personnel because, although they may be at as much or more risk than healthcare professionals, their personal safety is often considered as an afterthought by administrators. “An important lesson from the SARS outbreak is that, whereas most clinicians will “stay and fight,” vital support personnel, including those in materials and supply, logistics, cleaning, information technology communications, maintenance, and refuse removal, may feel no commitment to assist; moreover, they may feel undervalued, unprotected from risks, and ignored when they are omitted from vital communications.” 12

If all the staff necessary to run medical facilities fail to receive timely, relevant and believable information, they may not respond, and the quality of available healthcare will deteriorate. Widely distributing accurate risk assessments and descriptions of protective measures for staff will encourage the maximal number of clinicians and other necessary personnel to respond to the situation. Therefore, disaster planners and managers should do everything possible to communicate the risks clearly to all members of the healthcare system and to provide them with as much support and security as possible.

Risk communication ( Figure 1 ) is “the exchange of real-time information, advice and opinions between experts and people facing threats to their health, economic or social well-being.” 13 Its purpose “is to enable people at risk to make informed decisions to protect themselves and their loved ones.” 13 Risk communication can help keep healthcare and other vital workers at their posts. But it must be done by appropriate people, educated in risk-communication techniques, in a trustworthy manner (honestly, frequently, open/available), and through easily accessible means, which includes role-modeling by those in charge. 14

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is wjem-21-477-g001.jpg

Crisis emergency risk communication in an infectious disease outbreak. 16

In addition to providing information, research shows that to attain the maximal response during risk-prone and other disasters, planners must do everything practicable to mitigate perceived risks and to address other concerns that may prevent staff from being either able or willing to work in a disaster ( Table 1 ). To address one concern, on March 20, 2020, the American Academy of Emergency Medicine issued a position statement saying, in part, that they believe “a physician, nurse, PA, first responder or other healthcare professional has the right to be removed from the schedule of work requiring direct contact with patients potentially infected with COVID-19 for issues of personal health, such as being on immunosuppressive therapy or other similar concerns, without the risk of termination of employment.” 15

Disaster responders’ concerns and planners’ potential mitigating actions. 5 , 18 – 25

PPE , personal protective equippment; PTSD , postraumatic stress disorder.

Reprinted, with permission, from the Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine . 7

Rarely discussed, but a key part of maintaining our workforce, is to support the psychosocial needs of the healthcare team. According to medical anthropologist Monica Schoch-Spana, “Pandemics aren’t just physical. They bring with them an almost shadow pandemic of psychological and societal injuries as well.” 17 Psychosocial support for healthcare workers in the current war against COVID-19 will be akin to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment for soldiers manning the front lines for extended periods. People respond to the risks differently, so experienced professionals will need to intervene before tragic, adverse events occur.

SCARCE RESOURCES AND SOME SOLUTIONS

In the current pandemic, some key resources are and will increasingly become scarce. Physicians will need to consider how to distribute available resources and obtain or improvise others. The most ethical course of action is to do everything possible to delay having to ration. Vital materials already in short supply include viral test kits and their associated equipment and reagents, personal protective equipment (PPE), ventilators, and hospital – especially ICU – beds. While China rapidly erected new, prefabricated hospitals to treat patients and many countries around the world are establishing alternative care sites, the United States has been slow to act.

Often not considered, healthcare workers, especially those with expertise treating the critically ill, will inevitably become a scarce resource. However, as the situation changes, most healthcare workers will constantly reassess their decisions about responding. As increasing numbers of personnel get sidelined due to actual or suspected disease, exhaustion, or fear for themselves or their families. Some active and retired personnel who initially stayed out of the fight or were sidelined due to illness or other circumstances may reassess their decision and join the battle. Employing senior medical students and extending advance practitioners’ scope of practice has been suggested as one way to ameliorate this problem.

In England and Wales, the National Health Service has asked about 65,000 retired doctors and nurses to return to work. In Scotland, they are recalling those who retired within the past three years. If these clinicians have been away from practice for more than a short time, they will receive brief refresher training. 26 The Institute of Medicine, among others, have described how to best manage resource scarcity in a widespread disaster ( Table 2 ). Many of these strategies are discussed in more detail elsewhere. 27

Strategies for Scarce Resource Situations. 27 – 30

PPE , personal protective equipment.

ETHICS OF SCARCE RESOURCE ALLOCATION

During or after attempts at conservation, reutilization, adaption, and substitution are performed maximally, rationing will need to be implemented. 31 The ethical principle that guides rationing is distributive justice, which requires that scarce resources be distributed fairly, providing them to those most in need. Specifically, it requires impartial and neutral decision makers to consistently apply rationing decisions across people and time (treating like cases alike). 32 This is based on Utilitarian principles, including conservation of resources, fiduciary responsibility (stewardship), multiplier effect (does the person have a job that will save other lives?), immediate usefulness, medical success, and caretaker role. 33 , 34 Most ethicists agree, however, that such distribution should be equitable, although in some circumstances other distribution methods, such as first come, first served; equal distribution; and even, no distribution may be more rational. Even with agreement about equitable distribution, scarcity often requires clinicians to prioritize which patients receive the resources. 33 , 34

As the COVID-19 pandemic extends its devastation, physicians around the world are already facing the daunting task of rationing lifesaving resources. This is upending their traditional method of treating the sickest first in emergency departments or “first come first served” in the ICUs. 31 In Italy, physicians have reported limiting ventilators to those less than 60 years old, and China and Spain have implemented medical resource rationing. The US government and many states that have developed rationing plans have yet to explicitly implement them. 35 Many of these plans may be outdated, and none have been tested to determine whether they will save lives. In fact, a Canadian study of H1N1 patients found that 70% of patients that a rationing plan would have removed from ventilators survived with continued ventilation. 36

Dr. Laura Evans, an intensivist at the University of Washington, is working with her state to devise a triage plan that would be doing “the most good for the most people and be fair and equitable and transparent in the process.” Yet the Washington State Health Department recently issued a statement that “triage teams under crisis conditions should consider transferring patients out of the hospital or to palliative care if the patient’s baseline functioning was marked by ‘loss of reserves in energy, physical ability, cognition and general health.’” 36

Rationing plans must conform to general ethical principles and to existing community moral standards. Community input into these plans is vital for maintaining the public’s trust in clinicians, the institutions, and the organizations involved in disaster relief and resource allocation. A major ethical dilemma is that current rationing criteria may skew away from normally disadvantaged populations. In the past, allocation plans were developed by the healthcare community. In the current crisis, some planning groups have tried to address this by asking disparate communities throughout their region to offer input into the plans. 36

In all circumstances, rationing scarce medical resources is difficult and stressful. Such distribution, rather than being based on politics, money or power, must be based on an equitable (fair), openly available, pre-existing plan. It may be beneficial to have emergency physicians and intensivists take the lead (under set protocols) in making these decisions, since they have had more experience than others in doing this on a regular basis. Ideally, they will have support from their institutions’ bioethics consultants, social workers, and chaplains.

Rationing will not end when medications to treat COVID-19 are eventually identified or vaccines are produced for prevention. In the first weeks or months there will be limited amounts available, with massive public anguish over how they are being distributed. Those involved in developing and implementing healthcare resource distribution will need to think ahead and include this eventuality in their plans. Lastly, resource allocation is not the only option. Disasters are the exact situations where clinicians and administrators need to “think outside the box” by expanding clinical roles and responsibilities, relaxing restrictive regulations, improvising medical equipment, and devising other solutions to scarcity. 27 Until the pandemic ends, we will need to encourage our healthcare workforce to stay at their posts and to use their fortitude and intellect as they face the multiple challenges involved with their jobs.

Physicians and other healthcare providers’ individual risks will vary by the nature of the causative agent, the provider’s activities and underlying health, and the protections offered and used.
Provider and population perception of risk will probably not be congruent with reality.
History and the nature of the healthcare professions demonstrate that we will have enough professional personnel to treat patients.
History suggests that we will not have the necessary support personnel—unless we respect their jobs and their risks and communicate with them in an open and honest manner.
The distribution of scarce, lifesaving resources will first require searching for alternatives and then making triage decisions based on careful planning with, if possible, widespread input.

Section Editor: Mark I. Langdorf, MD, MHPE

Full text available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_westjem

Disclaimer: Due to the rapidly evolving nature of this outbreak, and in the interests of rapid dissemination of reliable, actionable information, this paper went through expedited peer review. Additionally, information should be considered current only at the time of publication and may evolve as the science develops.

Conflicts of Interest : By the West JEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Research Paper
Book Report
Book Review
Movie Review
Dissertation
Thesis Proposal
Research Proposal
Dissertation - Abstract
Dissertation Introduction
Dissertation Review
Dissertat. Methodology
Dissertation - Results
Admission Essay
Scholarship Essay
Personal Statement
Proofreading
Speech Presentation
Math Problem
Article Critique
Annotated Bibliography
Reaction Paper
PowerPoint Presentation
Statistics Project
Multiple Choice Questions
Resume Writing
Other (Not Listed)

Health Care Ethics Essay (Essay Sample)

The course is Health Care Ethics: Policy and Management Perspectives. I have attached the instructions. Please let me know what 3 sources (or more) you will be using from the file so I can find them through my database and send them to you. The other three will be from your choosing as indicated in the outline.

Essay: The essay will be on a topic of the student’s choosing, based on course material. Essays must be five pages, in Times New Roman 12-point font, double spaced with 1-inch margins. Students will be expected to build a cogent argument related to a healthcare ethics issue, grounded in course readings and materials as well as three supplementary scholarly readings.

Sept. 18: The Foundation of Modern Medical/Bioethics: Moral and Theoretical Frameworks

Robert Baker and Laurence B. McCullough, “Medical Ethics' Appropriation of Moral Philosophy: The Case of the Sympathetic and the Unsympathetic Physician.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Volume 17, Number 1 (March 2007): 3-22.

David Armstrong, “Embodiment and ethics: constructing medicine’s two bodies.” Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 28 No. 6 (2006): 866– 881

Sept. 25: Patients and Health Care Providers

Group 1 Presentation

Andrew Carson-Stevens, et al., “Framing patient consent for student involvement

in pelvic examination: a dual model of autonomy.” Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 39 (2013): 676-680.

Susan Sherwin, “Moral Perception and Global Visions,” Bioethics Volume 15 Number 3 (2001): 175-188.

Oct. 2: The Three ‘Cs’: Consent, Capacity and Confidentiality

Group 2 Presentation

Paul Weindling, “The origins of informed consent: the international scientific commission on

medical war crimes, and the Nuremberg Code,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine Volume 75, Number 1 (Spring 2001): pp. 37-7.

Madeleine J Murtagh and Julie Hepworth, “Feminist ethics and menopause: autonomy and decision-making in primary medical care.” Social Science & Medicine Volume 56, Issue 8 (April 2003): 1643–1652.

Catherine Frazee, Joan Gilmour, and Roxanne Mykitiuk, “Now You See Her, Now You Don’t: How Law Shapes Disabled Women’s Experiences of Exposure, Surveillance and Assessment in the Clinical Encounter.” Chapter 10 in Dianne Pothier and Richard Devlin, eds. Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy and Law (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006) [ebook available online through York Library’s website].

Oct. 9: Clinical Research with Humans

Group 3 Presentation

Position Paper due

Vanessa Northington Gamble, “Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care.” American Journal of Public Health Vol. 87 (November 1997): 1773-1778

Salla Sariola and Bob Simpson, “Theorising the human subject in biomedical research: International clinical trials and bioethics discourses in contemporary Sri Lanka.” Social Science & Medicine , Volume 73, Issue 4 (August 2011): 515–521

Ayo Wahlberg, et al, “From global bioethics to ethical governance of biomedical research collaborations.” Social Science & Medicine Volume 98 (December 2013): 293–300

Oct. 16: Contested Therapies and Technologies

Group 4 Presentation

Georgiann Davis and Erin L. Murphy, "Intersex Bodies as States of Exception: An Empirical Explanation for Unnecessary Surgical Modification" Feminist Formations Vol. 25 No. 2 (Summer 2013): 129-152.

V. Cakic, “Smart drugs for cognitive enhancement: ethical and pragmatic considerations in the era of cosmetic neurology.” Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 35 (2009):611-615

Oct. 23: Reproductive Decision Making

Group 5 Presentation

Jennifer Parks, “Rethinking Radical Politics in the Context of Assisted Reproductive Technology.” Bioethics Vol. 23 No. 1 (January 2009): 20-27

Julie Zilberberg, “Sex Selection and Restricting Abortion and Sex Determination,” Bioethics

Volume 21 Issue 9 (November 2007): 517-519

Receive great stories from around the world directly in your inbox.

Stay up to date about Global Voices and our mission. See our Privacy Policy for details. Newsletter powered by Mailchimp ( Privacy Policy and Terms ).

bahasa Indonesia

See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

What Is Global Voices?
Partner with Global Voices
Translation Services
Arts & Culture
Breaking News
Citizen Media
Development
Digital Activism
Economics & Business
Environment
Ethnicity & Race
Freedom of Speech
Human Rights
Humanitarian Response
International Relations
Media & Journalism
Migration & Immigration
Photography
War & Conflict
Women & Gender

Moscow's Top Cancer Hospital Under Pressure Amidst Drive for Health Care Privatization

Translations

Moscow City Oncology Hospital No. 62. Source: http://onco62.ru/history/.

On November 8, Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin signed an order into law stripping Moscow City Oncological Hospital No. 62, one of Russia's most well-regarded cancer hospitals, of its status as an autonomous institution. In the technocratic parlance of Moscow city officials, the hospital had been “optimized,” coming under the budgetary purview of the city government, and ostensibly improving the institution's efficiency.

But to many, the reclassification of Hospital No. 62 seemed less like an optimization than a step towards closure —part of a broader movement towards the privatization of the Russian health care system, which is supposed to provide free health services to the country’s 140 million citizens. Indeed, less than three weeks after Sobyanin signed the order, the hospital's chief physician resigned and doctors began wondering about their institution's future. With private hospitals replacing public hospitals around Moscow, and with remaining public hospitals becoming increasingly overburdened and underfunded, many question how long the existing system can hold out.

Support our work

Global Voices stands out as one of the earliest and strongest examples of how media committed to building community and defending human rights can positively influence how people experience events happening beyond their own communities and national borders.

Please consider making a donation to help us continue this work.

Recent Russia Stories

What is behind the suicides of LGBTQ+ people in refugee camps in the Netherlands?

Georgian Dream's fight against LGBTQ+ people

The right-wing shock doctrine at the Finnish-Russian border

‘We march bravely': Transgender Day of Visibility marked in North Macedonia

Solving the problem of animal cruelty in Trinidad & Tobago needs more than just legislation

Ukrainian men running from mobilization: An uncomfortable topic no-one wants to discuss

[…] by Isaac Webb · comments (0) Donate · Share this: twitter facebook reddit […]

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)

Subscribe to comments on this post via email

All comments are reviewed by a moderator . Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
Please treat others with respect . Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.

Global Voices is supported by the efforts of our volunteer contributors, foundations, donors and mission-related services. For more information please read our Fundraising Ethics Policy .

Special thanks to our many sponsors and funders .

Please support our important work:

-->