IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v42y1996i7p1049-1055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public

Author

Listed:
  • Ubel, Peter A.
  • Loewenstein, George

Abstract

The transplant system has been criticized for not paying enough attention to efficiency in distributing scarce organs. But little research has been done to see how the general public views tradeoffs between efficiency and equity. We surveyed members of the general public to see how they would distribute organs among patients with varying chances of benefiting from them. In addition, we asked subjects to explain their decisions and to tell us about any other information they would have liked in order to make the decisions. We found that the public places a very high value on giving everyone a chance at receiving scarce resources, even if that means a significant decrease in the chance that available organs will save people's lives. Our results raise important questions about whether the aims of outcomes research and cost-effective studies agree with the values of the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Ubel, Peter A. & Loewenstein, George, 1996. "Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 42(7), pages 1049-1055, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:7:p:1049-1055
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(95)00216-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paul Dolan & Rebecca Shaw & Aki Tsuchiya & Alan Williams, 2005. "QALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 197-208, February.
    2. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    3. Dolan, Paul & Shaw, Rebecca, 2004. "A note on a discussion group study of public preferences regarding priorities in the allocation of donor kidneys," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 31-36, April.
    4. Miqdad Asaria & Joan Costa-Font & Frank Cowell, 2023. "How does exposure to COVID-19 influence health and income inequality aversion?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(3), pages 625-647, October.
    5. Julie Ratcliffe, 2000. "Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 137-148, March.
    6. Richardson, Jeff & Sinha, Kompal & Iezzi, Angelo & Maxwell, Aimee, 2012. "Maximising health versus sharing: Measuring preferences for the allocation of the health budget," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(8), pages 1351-1361.
    7. Joan Costa-i-Font & Frank Cowell, 2019. "Incorporating Inequality Aversion in Health-Care Priority Setting," CESifo Working Paper Series 7503, CESifo.
    8. Benjamin Ouvrard & Arnaud Reynaud & Stéphane Cezera & Alban Thomas & Dishant Jojit James & Murudaiah Shivamurthy, 2023. "Distributive Justice in the Field: How do Indian Farmers Share Water? ," Working Papers hal-04150233, HAL.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:1:p:11-20 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Pius Krütli & Thomas Rosemann & Kjell Y Törnblom & Timo Smieszek, 2016. "How to Fairly Allocate Scarce Medical Resources: Ethical Argumentation under Scrutiny by Health Professionals and Lay People," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Dolan, Paul & Robinson, Angela, 2001. "The measurement of preferences over the distribution of benefits: The importance of the reference point," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1697-1709, October.
    12. Benning, Tim M. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C., 2013. "Paying more for faster care? Individuals' attitude toward price-based priority access in health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 119-128.
    13. John McKie & Bradley Shrimpton & Jeff Richardson & Rosalind Hurworth, 2011. "The monetary value of a life year: evidence from a qualitative study of treatment costs," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(8), pages 945-957, August.
    14. Paul Dolan & Aki Tsuchiya, 2003. "The person trade‐off method and the transitivity principle: an example from preferences over age weighting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 505-510, June.
    15. Lancsar, Emily & Wildman, John & Donaldson, Cam & Ryan, Mandy & Baker, Rachel, 2011. "Deriving distributional weights for QALYs through discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 466-478, March.
    16. Dana Goldman & Darius Lakdawalla & Tomas J. Philipson & Wesley Yin, 2010. "Valuing health technologies at nice: recommendations for improved incorporation of treatment value in HTA," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(10), pages 1109-1116, October.
    17. Anthony J. Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2012. "An Equity Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 428-441, May.
    18. Eyal Gamliel & Eyal Peer, 2010. "Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 5(1), pages 11-20, February.
    19. Anthony J Culyer & Yvonne Bombard, 2011. "An Equity Checklist: a Framework for Health Technology Assessments," Working Papers 062cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.

    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:eee:socmed:v:42:y:1996:i:7:p:1049-1055. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.