Rationing elective surgery for smokers and obese patients: responsibility or prognosis?

BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):28 (2018)
Julian Savulescu
Oxford University
In the United Kingdom, a number of National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups have proposed controversial measures to restrict elective surgery for patients who either smoke or are obese. Whilst the nature of these measures varies between NHS authorities, typically, patients above a certain Body Mass Index and smokers are required to lose weight and quit smoking prior to being considered eligible for elective surgery. Patients will be supported and monitored throughout this mandatory period to ensure their clinical needs are appropriately met. Controversy regarding such measures has primarily centred on the perceived unfairness of targeting certain health states and lifestyle choices to save public money. Concerns have also been raised in response to rhetoric from certain NHS authorities, which may be taken to imply that such measures punitively hold people responsible for behaviours affecting their health states, or simply for being in a particular health state. In this paper, we examine the various elective surgery rationing measures presented by NHS authorities. We argue that, where obesity and smoking have significant implications for elective surgical outcomes, bearing on effectiveness, the rationing of this surgery can be justified on prognostic grounds. It is permissible to aim to maximise the benefit provided by limited resources, especially for interventions that are not urgently required. However, we identify gaps in the empirical evidence needed to conclusively demonstrate these prognostic grounds, particularly for obese patients. Furthermore, we argue that appeals to personal responsibility, both in the prospective and retrospective sense, are insufficient in justifying this particular policy. Given the strength of an alternative justification grounded in clinical effectiveness, rhetoric from NHS authorities should avoid explicit statements, which suggest that personal responsibility is the key justificatory basis of proposed rationing measures.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0272-7
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 38,086
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Lifestyle, Responsibility and Justice.E. Feiring - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (1):33-36.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Process of Informed Consent for Urgent Abdominal Surgery.R. Kay - 2001 - Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (3):157-161.
Causal Responsibility and Rationing in Medicine.Frank Dietrich - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (1):113-131.
Rational Rationing?B. Brecher - 2008 - Clinical Ethics 3 (2):53-54.
Is Informed Consent Effective in Trauma Patients?A. Bhangu, E. Hood, A. Datta & S. Mangaleshkar - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):780-782.
Rationing and Reality.Eric J. Cassell, John M. Freeman & Robert J. Wells - 2011 - Hastings Center Report 41 (6):4-6.
The Problems with Rule-Based Rationing.Mark A. Hall - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (4):315-332.


Added to PP index

Total views
13 ( #475,250 of 2,313,334 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #161,796 of 2,313,334 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature