Article Text
Abstract
The debate on responsibility for health takes place within political philosophy and in policy setting. It is increasingly relevant in the context of rationing scarce resources as a substantial, and growing, proportion of diseases in high-income countries is attributable to lifestyle. Until now, empirical studies of medical professionals' attitudes towards personal responsibility for health as a component of prioritisation have been lacking. This paper explores to what extent Norwegian physicians find personal responsibility for health relevant in prioritisation and what type of risk behaviour they consider relevant in such decisions. The proportion who agree that it should count varies from 17.1% (‘Healthcare priority should depend on the patient's responsibility for the disease’) to 26.9% (‘Access to scarce organ transplants should depend on the patient's responsibility for the disease’). Higher age and being male is positively correlated with acceptance. The doctors are more willing to consider substance use in priority setting decisions than choices on food and exercise. The findings reveal that a sizeable proportion have beliefs that conflict with the norms stated in the Norwegian Patient Act. It may be possible that the implementation of legal regulations can be hindered by the opposing attitudes among doctors. A further debate on the role personal responsibility should play in priority setting seems warranted. However, given the deep controversies about the concept of health responsibility and its application, it would be wise to proceed with caution.
Design Nationally representative cross-sectional study.
Setting Panel-data.
Participants 1072 respondents, response rate 65%.
- Priority setting
- responsibility
- lifestyle
- doctors'
- behaviour
- just health
- applied and professional ethics
- philosophy of the health professions
- allocation of health care resources
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
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
- 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
- Using economics to set pragmatic and ethical priorities