Escalating health care expenditure worldwide is driving the need for effective resource decision-making, with medical practitioners increasingly making complex resource decisions within the context of patient care. Despite raising serious legal and ethical issues in practice, this has attracted little attention in Australia, or internationally. In particular, it is unknown how orthopaedic surgeons perceive their obligations to the individual patient, and the wider community, when rationing care, and how they reconcile competing obligations. This research explores legal and ethical considerations, and resource allocation by Australian orthopaedic surgeons, as a means of achieving public health cost containment driven by macro-level policy and funding decisions.

This research found that Australian orthopaedic surgeon's perceptions, and resource allocation decision making, can be explained by understanding how principles of distributive justice challenge, and shift, the traditional medical paradigm. It found that distributive justice, and challenges of macro level health policy and funding decisions, have given rise to two new medical paradigms. Each which try to balance the best interests of individual patients with demands in respect of the sustainability of the health system, in a situation where resources may be constrained. This research shows that while bedside rationing has positioned the medical profession as the gate keepers of resources, it may have left them straddling an increasingly irreconcilable void between the interests of the individual patient and the wider community, with the sustainability of the health system hanging in the balance.