Article Text

PDF
Substance in bureaucratic procedures for healthcare resource allocation: a reply to Smith
  1. Gabriele Badano1,2
  1. 1CRASSH, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  2. 2Girton College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gabriele Badano, CRASSH, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9DT, UK; gb521{at}cam.ac.uk

Abstract

William Smith’s recent article criticises the so-called orthodox approaches to the normative analysis of healthcare resource allocation, associated to the requirement that decision-makers should abide by strictly procedural principles of legitimacy defining a deliberative democratic process. Much of the appeal of Smith’s argument goes down to his awareness of real-world processes and, in particular, to the large gap he identifies between well-led democratic deliberation and the messiness of the process through which the intuitively legitimate Affordable Care Act (ACA) was created. This reply aims to demonstrate that the ACA provides no counterexample to orthodox views, seizing this opportunity to explore the specific space that the procedural principles populating orthodox accounts are meant to regulate. Neither general questions of healthcare justice concerning, for example, universal access nor, relatedly, the activity of elected politicians falls within the natural scope of application of such principles, revealing a much more complex picture of the interactions between justice and legitimacy as well as substantive and procedural considerations than acknowledged by Smith. In the end, orthodox accounts of healthcare resource allocation turn out to provide a precious fund of theoretical resources for the normative study of administrators, which might be useful well beyond bioethics and health policy.

  • resource allocation
  • allocation of health care resources
  • distributive justice
  • political philosophy

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This study was funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

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

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.

Linked Articles