Is It Fair for a Doctor's Mom to Get Faster Emergency-Room Care?

New York Times

19-07-2025

My partner recently took a bad fall on some concrete steps and got a large gash on her head. Fortunately, her son — a prominent cardiologist at a local hospital — was present.
He drove past two closer hospitals to reach the one where he is on staff. The E.R. was basically standing room only, but she was ushered into a private room and received immediate attention, as well as staples and other treatments. A scan, too, was provided right away, with a prompt reading from a radiologist.
What would probably have been a five-hour ordeal for most took less than 70 minutes. Was this special treatment ethical? One religious leader I asked said yes, arguing that such perks are a legitimate reward for his work. Another said no, insisting that no one should have to wait longer because others receive V.I.P. priority. Thoughts? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Here's a classic example of how our special responsibilities to loved ones can come into tension with the more general obligations we owe to others. Ideally, doctors — and indeed all of us — should support triage systems in which patients are cared for strictly according to medical urgency, not personal connections or status. That's simple fairness.
Yet, in ways the philosopher Bernard Williams explored, our moral obligations are also shaped by our relationships. If, confronted with two drowning people — one your spouse, one a stranger — you paused to deliberate whether it was defensible to save your spouse, you may, in Williams's famous words, have had 'one thought too many.' Sometimes morality not only permits but requires us to give priority to those dearest to us.
In this case, the doctor was making decisions not as a hospital official but as a son. Taking his mother to be his special concern, he understandably pushed for her to be seen quickly. In these circumstances, simply standing by might seem cold, a dereliction of filial duty.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.