{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022302158273381296, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0057553956834532375, 'mean_word_length': 5.237668161434978, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The politics of end-of-life decision-making: computerised decision-support tools, physicians' jurisdiction and morality.

With the increasing corporate and governmental rationalisation of medical care, the mandate of efficiency has caused many to fear that concern for the individual patient will be replaced with impersonal, rule-governed allocation of medical resources. Largely ignored is the role of moral principles in medical decision-making. This analysis comes from an ethnographic study conducted from 1999-2001 in three US Intensive Care Units, two of which were using the computerised decision-support tool, APACHE III (Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation III), which notably predicts the probability that a patient will die. It was found that the use of APACHE presents a paradox regarding concern for the individual patient. To maintain jurisdiction over the care of patients, physicians share the data with the payers and regulators of care to prove they are using resources effectively and efficiently, yet they use the system in conjunction with moral principles to justify treating each patient as unique. Thus, concern for the individual patient is not lessened with the use of this system. However, physicians do not share the data with patients or surrogate decision-makers because they fear they will be viewed as more interested in profits than patients.