Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment? DESIGN: Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels. RESULTS: In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement. HIGHLIGHTS: We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.