Article Text
Abstract
A notorious debate in the ethics of healthcare rationing concerns whether to address rationing decisions with substantial principles or with a procedural approach. One major argument in favour of procedural approaches is that substantial principles are indeterminate so that we can reasonably disagree about how to apply them. To deal with indeterminacy, we need a just decision process. In this paper I argue that it is a mistake to abandon substantial principles just because they are indeterminate. It is true that reasonable substantial principles designed to deal with healthcare rationing can be expected to be indeterminate. Yet, the indeterminacy is only partial. In some situations we can fully determine what to do in light of the principles, in some situations we cannot. The conclusion to draw from this fact is not that we need to develop procedural approaches to healthcare rationing, but rather that we need a more complex theory in which both substantial principles and procedural approaches are needed.
- Allocation of Health Care Resources
- Resource Allocation
- Ethics
- Philosophical Ethics
- Political Philosophy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Principles of justice in health care rationing
- “No decisions about us without us”? Individual healthcare rationing in a fiscal ice age
- Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing
- The case against
- Sustainability principle for the ethics of healthcare resource allocation
- Antimicrobial stewardship programmes: bedside rationing by another name?
- A proposal for formal fairness requirements in triage emergency departments: publicity, accessibility, relevance, standardisability and accountability
- How can bedside rationing be justified despite coexisting inefficiency? The need for ‘benchmarks of efficiency’
- Just health responsibility
- Justice and procedure: how does “accountability for reasonableness” result in fair limit-setting decisions?