Certainty and agnosticism about lethal injection in late abortion.

PIP: This article was written in support of a claim forwarded by Joan Callahan that fetal intracardiac potassium chloride injection (KCl injection) should be offered to women undergoing second-trimester abortion. Callahan provides three positive arguments for use of the technique: maternal safety, the short-term interests of fetuses, and the longterm interests of fetuses who survive the abortion. The author of this article notes that the fact that KCl injection is currently the safest procedure for the mother is argument enough in favor of offering the procedure. Even physicians who object to the procedure are obligated to inform their patients about it and should be encouraged to help their patients locate a physician willing to perform KCl injection. Callahan's argument about fetal pain is sound but unnecessary as long as KCl injection remains the safest procedure for the mother. The argument about preventing longterm suffering for fetuses who survive late abortion is the weakest because it is impossible to determine whether the fetuses would be better off dead or alive. Hospitals can resolve some of the dilemmas which are associated with KCl injection by having a well thought out and clearly communicated policy about resuscitation of an aborted fetus. Callahan argues that the policy should be a blanket "do not resuscitate." The author is less sure that a blanket policy in either direction would be correct. Since it is impossible to know in advance what is best for the child, other factors must determine whether one policy is preferable to another. These include legal considerations such as the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals in hospitals.^ieng

Financially motivated transfers and discharges: administrators' ethics and public expectations.

In response to a competitive environment, hospital administrators are pressuring physicians to discharge Medicare patients "sicker and quicker" and to transfer indigent patients from their emergency rooms. This paper compares health administrators' ethics to public expectations regarding financially motivated hospital transfers and discharges. Health administrators use balancing strategies: code morality, survivalism, mission dependency, and tithing. Public expectations, exemplified in P.L. 99-272, P.L. 99-509, and recent case law, are based on norms of potential for patient harm and patient occupancy. These norms are morally preferable to those of health administrators; they reinforce the value of identified lives and the reliability of the health care system.