Article info
PDFLaw, ethics and medicine
Paper
On the relevance of personal responsibility in priority setting: a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian medical doctors
- Correspondence to Dr Berit Bringedal, Harvard University Program in Ethics and Health, Harvard Medical School; 641 Huntington Avenue, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02215, USA; berit_bringedal{at}hms.harvard.edu
Citation
On the relevance of personal responsibility in priority setting: a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian medical doctors
Publication history
- Received July 5, 2010
- Revised October 29, 2010
- Accepted December 10, 2010
- First published February 18, 2011.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
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.
Copyright information
© 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Other content recommended for you
- Priority setting and personal health responsibility: an analysis of Norwegian key policy documents
- The right to treatment for self-inflicted conditions
- Personal responsibility for health as a rationing criterion: why we don’t like it and why maybe we should
- Just health responsibility
- Lifestyle, responsibility and justice
- Between professional values, social regulations and patient preferences: medical doctors’ perceptions of ethical dilemmas
- ‘There is a lot of good in knowing, but there is also a lot of downs’: public views on ethical considerations in population genomic screening
- Prevention in the age of personal responsibility: epigenetic risk-predictive screening for female cancers as a case study
- Against tiebreaking arguments in priority setting
- Does accountability for reasonableness work? A protocol for a mixed methods study using an audit tool to evaluate the decision-making of clinical commissioning groups in England