IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rmm/journl/v0y2009i29.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The 'Rule of Rescue' in Medical Priority Setting: Ethical Plausibilities and Implausibilities

Author

Listed:
  • Bettina Schoene-Seifert

    (Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster)

Abstract

Not infrequently, the so-called Rule of Rescue gets invoked as an allegedly self-evident constraint to the CBE-goal of maximizing health benefit with a given health budget. In this paper this constraint is critically analyzed. It will be argued that some of its implications are worth considering - but not the inherently vague Rule as such.

Suggested Citation

  • Bettina Schoene-Seifert, 2009. "The 'Rule of Rescue' in Medical Priority Setting: Ethical Plausibilities and Implausibilities," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 0(29), November.
    • Handle: RePEc:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rmm-journal.de/downloads/030_schoene_seifert.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kim, Joonkyung & Zhao, Min & Soman, Dilip, 2023. "Converging vs diverging: The effect of visual representation of goal structure on financial decisions," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 362-377.
    2. Heyes, Anthony & Lyon, Thomas P. & Martin, Steve, 2018. "Salience games: Private politics when public attention is limited," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 396-410.
    3. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2020. "Moral judgment of environmental harm caused by a single versus multiple wrongdoers: A survey experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:441-448 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Georges Dionne & Paul Lanoie, 2002. "How to Make a Public Choice About the Value of a Statistical Life: The Case of Road Safety," Cahiers de recherche 02-04, HEC Montréal, Institut d'économie appliquée.
    7. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    8. Sudeep Bhatia & Lukasz Walasek & Paul Slovic & Howard Kunreuther, 2021. "The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Evidence from Natural Language Analysis of Online News Articles and Social Media Posts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 179-203, January.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:4:p:297-306 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Dwight R. Lee & J. R. Clark, 2018. "Can behavioral economists improve economic rationality?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 23-40, January.
    11. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    12. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    13. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    14. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:8:p:595-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    17. Lunn, Peter D. & Timmons, Shane & Belton, Cameron A. & Barjaková, Martina & Julienne, Hannah & Lavin, Ciarán, 2020. "Motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    18. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:397-406 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Tilman Br�ck & Manuel Schubert, 2014. "The Perception of Lethal Risks - Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," HiCN Working Papers 188, Households in Conflict Network.
    21. Lenka Fiala & Charles N. Noussair, 2017. "Charitable Giving, Emotions, And The Default Effect," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1792-1812, October.
    22. Giuseppe Danese & Luigi Mittone, 2022. "The Tragedy of the Masks: curbing stockpiling behavior through a 'victim'," CEEL Working Papers 2201, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    23. Bodo Aretz & Sebastian Kube, 2013. "Choosing Your Object of Benevolence: A Field Experiment on Donation Options," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(1), pages 62-73, January.
    24. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2017. "Motivated Errors," Harvard Business School Working Papers 18-017, Harvard Business School, revised May 2018.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rmm:journl:v:0:y:2009:i:29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Friederike Pförtner (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hfbfide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.