Toward a Hybrid Theory of How to Allocate Health-related Resources
(2023) In Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom) 48(4). p.373-383- Abstract
How should scarce health-related resources be allocated? This paper argues that values that apply to these decisions fail to always fully determine what we should do. Health maximization and allocation-according-to-need are suggested as two values that should be part of a general theory of how to allocate health-related resources. The "small improvement argument"is used to argue that it is implausible that one alternative is always better, worse, or equal to another alternative with respect to these values. Approaches that rely on these values are thus incomplete. To deal with this, it is suggested that we ought to use incomplete theories in a two-step process. Such a process first discards ineligible alternatives, and, second, uses... (More)
How should scarce health-related resources be allocated? This paper argues that values that apply to these decisions fail to always fully determine what we should do. Health maximization and allocation-according-to-need are suggested as two values that should be part of a general theory of how to allocate health-related resources. The "small improvement argument"is used to argue that it is implausible that one alternative is always better, worse, or equal to another alternative with respect to these values. Approaches that rely on these values are thus incomplete. To deal with this, it is suggested that we ought to use incomplete theories in a two-step process. Such a process first discards ineligible alternatives, and, second, uses reasons grounded in collective commitments to identify a unique, best alternative in the remaining set.
(Less)
- author
- Herlitz, Anders LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- commitments, comparability, healthcare rationing, pluralism, priority setting
- in
- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom)
- volume
- 48
- issue
- 4
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Oxford University Press
- external identifiers
-
- pmid:37279934
- scopus:85163920741
- ISSN
- 0360-5310
- DOI
- 10.1093/jmp/jhad022
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 24e6eb84-86cd-49be-accb-f51eff404ecd
- date added to LUP
- 2023-09-11 12:47:44
- date last changed
- 2024-04-20 03:03:00
@article{24e6eb84-86cd-49be-accb-f51eff404ecd,
abstract = {{<p>How should scarce health-related resources be allocated? This paper argues that values that apply to these decisions fail to always fully determine what we should do. Health maximization and allocation-according-to-need are suggested as two values that should be part of a general theory of how to allocate health-related resources. The "small improvement argument"is used to argue that it is implausible that one alternative is always better, worse, or equal to another alternative with respect to these values. Approaches that rely on these values are thus incomplete. To deal with this, it is suggested that we ought to use incomplete theories in a two-step process. Such a process first discards ineligible alternatives, and, second, uses reasons grounded in collective commitments to identify a unique, best alternative in the remaining set.</p>}},
author = {{Herlitz, Anders}},
issn = {{0360-5310}},
keywords = {{commitments; comparability; healthcare rationing; pluralism; priority setting}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{4}},
pages = {{373--383}},
publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
series = {{Journal of Medicine and Philosophy (United Kingdom)}},
title = {{Toward a Hybrid Theory of How to Allocate Health-related Resources}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad022}},
doi = {{10.1093/jmp/jhad022}},
volume = {{48}},
year = {{2023}},
}