[Helping as a matter of expedience? Ethical objections against prioritization in medicine]

The paper discusses the question whether it could be ethically appropriate to "resolve" the problem of scarce resources in health care via priority lists. It is argued that such a schematical priority list could only be undisputed in ethical respects if it represented a broad consensus on the question what a good life would be. Priority lists are always implicit decisions about specific concepts of the good life. Using a priority list only in consideration of a mere cost-benefit ratio means to accept a mere utilitarian way of defining good life. Such a definition goes with neglect of the interests of people with chronic diseases, of patients with incurable diseases, of patients with a limited life expectancy. To neglect the interests of these patients means to abandon the core of medical identity, because medicine has the mission to help those above all who are most in need and those who cannot help themselves. And so we have to realize that for medicine there are some values which are more important than economic considerations. The physician is a person who gives a promise, the promise to be there for the patient. If the physician now is becoming a businessman, this promise is no longer valid. The businessman doesn't give any other promise than not to act against the contract. But the main need of the patient, his longing for a human person whom he can trust, cannot become part of a contract. Especially in our time medicine has to fight for the core of its identity.