Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts three different substantive (as opposed to procedural) principles of justice for making health care priority-setting or "rationing" decisions: need principles, maximising principles and egalitarian principles. The principles are compared by tracing out their implications for a hypothetical rationing decision involving four identified patients. This decision has been the subject of an empirical study of public opinion based on small-group discussions, which found that the public seem to support a pluralistic combination of all three kinds of rationing principle. In conclusion, it is suggested that there is room for further work by philosophers and others on the development of a coherent and pluralistic theory of health care rationing which accords with public opinions.
Key Words: Health care • rationing • medical ethics • justice • need
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (156.8 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Cookson R., Dolan P. Public views on health care rationing: a group discussion study. Health Policy. 1999 Oct;49(1-2):63–74. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(99)00043-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Culyer A. J., Wagstaff A. Equity and equality in health and health care. J Health Econ. 1993 Dec;12(4):431–457. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(93)90004-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Culyer A. Need--is a consensus possible? J Med Ethics. 1998 Apr;24(2):77–80. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.2.77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hadorn D. C. Setting health care priorities in Oregon. Cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. JAMA. 1991 May 1;265(17):2218–2225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jonsen A. R. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med Health Care. 1986 Sep;14(3-4):172–174. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1986.tb00974.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the 'fair innings' argument. Health Econ. 1997 Mar-Apr;6(2):117–132. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1050(199703)6:2<117::aid-hec256>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]