|
Spring 2002
|
Allocation
of Resources
Refusing
an Amputation: Who should pay for the Extra care?
Otis Simmons, a 58-year-old derelict, walked barefoot in bitter cold
through the streets of Manhattan shortly before Christmas, in order to
reach Roosevelt Hospital. “I froze,” he said later. “ I sat in one
place 15 hours.” After he was hospitalized, he developed gangrene in
his badly frostbitten feet. The doctors wanted to amputate the infected
portions, noting that otherwise the condition could become
“life-threatening”. Simmons refused the treatment: “My two legs
got to stay on. I won’t have the operation. I got to cure my own
self.”
Soon after, despite objections from hospital physicians, a State Supreme
Court justice ruled that Simmons was legally competent and had the right
to refuse the amputation.
Antibiotic treatment helped to stall the infection. However, Simmons
finally lost two toes on his left foot and part of his right foot. The
bill for his three-month hospitalization amounted to $29,000 and has
been submitted to Medicaid. A hospital spokesman has said, “We don’t
know how much they will pay or when they will pay it.”
Assuming a competent
patient has the right to refuse medical treatment, does e have the
right to have Medicaid funds pay for additional care required by the
refusal?
|
Course
Overview