Norman Daniels’ theory of justice and health faces a serious practical problem: his theory can ground the special moral importance of health and allows distinguishing just from unjust health inequalities, but it provides little practical guidance for allocating resources when they are especially scarce. Daniels’ solution to this problem is a fair process that he specifies as “accountability for reasonableness”. Daniels claims that accountability for reasonableness makes limit-setting decisions in healthcare not only legitimate, but also fair. This paper assesses the latter claim. Does accountability for reasonableness result in fair limit-setting decisions? It is argued that the answer to this question is not a clear yes. Daniels is remarkably unclear about the criterion of fairness that accountability for reasonableness satisfies. The paper discusses different options for resolving this lack of clarity and examines how they apply to Daniels’ accountability for reasonableness framework. It is concluded, first, that accountability for reasonableness is not a paradigm case of any of the classic notions of procedural justice; second, that what might be called “constrained pure procedural justice” best reflects how accountability for reasonableness results in fair limit-setting decisions; and third, that the procedural conditions of accountability for reasonableness must be further specified and amended to better achieve a fair process, and hence fair limit-setting decisions.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding: This work was completed with financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Competing interests: None.
The opinions expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the policies and positions of the National Institutes of Health, the US Public Health Service or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
↵i Thanks to Ben Sachs for suggesting this term.
↵ii I owe the following point to Dave Wendler.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Just health: replies and further thoughts
- Justice in action? Introduction to the minisymposium on Norman Daniels’ Just health: meeting health needs fairly
- Moral ambivalence towards the Cancer Drugs Fund
- Integrating philosophy, policy and practice to create a just and fair health service
- Age rationing and prudential lifespan account in Norman Daniels’ Just health
- Principles of justice in health care rationing
- Inequalities and healthcare reform in Chile: equity of what?
- Can medical algorithms be fair? Three ethical quandaries and one dilemma
- Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development
- Just health responsibility