This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Edmund F. Kal, MD
Athens, Ohio

JAMA. 1989;262(15):2091.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

I concur with Dr Faden¹ that a mechanism that claims to protect patients' rights, but does so by fortuitously also saving money, not for the patient mind you, but for the said "protector," is gravely suspect as to its true motivation.

While in principle it makes sense simply to deny payment for an unwanted service, I can only shudder when I envision the results of a consistent application of Mr Kapp's² proposal. Can you imagine the insane and unconscionable delays and confusion in an emergency department in which the physician, the staff, and the clerical personnel are concerned, foremost, with obtaining legally foolproof documentation (that is, not just legally valid, but that provides legally provable evidence of the patient's consent) rather than with providing what is clinically the best intervention?

It is illogical that Mr Kapp is unwilling to suspect that clinicians may fake such . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?