Better Regulation of End-Of-Life Care: A Call For A Holistic Approach

Author:

White Ben P.,Willmott Lindy,Close Eliana

Abstract

AbstractExisting regulation of end-of-life care is flawed. Problems include poorly-designed laws, policies, ethical codes, training, and funding programs, which often are neither effective nor helpful in guiding decision-making. This leads to adverse outcomes for patients, families, health professionals, and the health system as a whole. A key factor contributing to the harms of current regulation is a siloed approach to regulating end-of-life care. Existing approaches to regulation, and research into how that regulation could be improved, have tended to focus on a single regulatory instrument (e.g., just law or just ethical codes). As a result, there has been a failure to capture holistically the various forces that guide end-of-life care. This article proposes a response to address this, identifying “regulatory space” theory as a candidate to provide the much-needed holistic insight into improving regulation of end-of-life care. The article concludes with practical implications of this approach for regulators and researchers.

Funder

Australian Research Council Future Fellowship

Queensland University of Technology

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health (social science)

Reference60 articles.

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2019. Deaths, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/deaths-australia/2019. Last accessed January 26, 2022.

2. Berlinger, N., B. Jennings, and S.M. Wolf. 2013. The Hastings Center guidelines for decisions on life-sustaining treatment and care near the end of life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

3. Black, J. 2002. Critical reflections on regulation. Australasian Journal of Legal Philosophy 27: 1–35.

4. Black, J. 2003. Enrolling actors in regulatory systems: examples from UK financial services regulation. Public Law (Spring): 63–91.

5. Burris, S. 2008. Regulatory innovation in the governance of human subjects research: A cautionary tale and some modest proposals. Regulation & Governance 2(1): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2007.00025.x.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3