You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Testimonial injustice: discounting women’s voices in health care priority setting
  1. Siun Gallagher,
  2. John Miles Little,
  3. Claire Hooker
  1. Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Siun Gallagher, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; siun.gallagher{at}sydney.edu.au

Abstract

Testimonial injustice occurs when bias against the credibility of certain social identities results in discounting of their contributions to deliberations. In this analysis, we describe testimonial injustice against women and how it figures in macroallocation procedure. We show how it harms women as deliberators, undermines the objective of inclusivity in macroallocation and affects the justice of resource distributions. We suggest that remedial action is warranted in order to limit the effects of testimonial injustice in this context, especially on marginalised and disadvantaged groups, and propose three areas for action, whose implementation might feasibly be achieved by those immediately involved in macroallocation.

  • allocation of healthcare resources
  • applied and professional ethics
  • distributive justice
  • ethics
  • women

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105984

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SG helped in conception of the work, analysis and interpretation, drafting the article. ML and CH performed the critical revision of the article. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you