You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 271 No. 4, January 26, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Law and Medicine
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (35)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Rationing and the Americans With Disabilities Act

David Orentlicher, JD, MD

JAMA. 1994;271(4):308-314.

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

LAST year, when the Bush administration rejected Oregon's plan to ration medical care, it surprised observers with its reliance on the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) as the basis for the rejection.1 When limitations in health care coverage have been challenged under other laws protecting the disabled, courts have not been sympathetic. In addition, in concluding that quality of life and functional status should not be taken into account at all in making rationing decisions,2 the Bush administration called into question any serious attempts to ration health care (Am Med News. November 9, 1992:1).

Nevertheless, there were problems with the Oregon plan. For example, there was unfair discrimination in Oregon's decision to deny liver transplants to rehabilitated patients with alcoholic liver disease but not to patients with other causes of liver failure.3 Oregon modified its plan in response to the rejection and in response to further objections . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]


Author Affiliations

From the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, University of Chicago Law School, and Ethics and Human Values Program, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, III.


Footnotes

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the American Medical Association, the University of Chicago, or Northwestern University.

Reprint requests to the Office of the General Counsel, American Medical Association, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (Dr Orentlicher).



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





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.