Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing
This paper challenges the QALY maximizing approach to rationing health care on the grounds of the consequentialist (and sometimes approximately utilitarian) moral framework on which it is based. An alternative methodological approach is suggested and, in addition to consequences, four normative determinants of health care entitlements are identified: rights, public opinion, social contracts and community values. Survey evidence is presented which shows support for these alternative frameworks and a rejection of consequentialism. The paper suggests that a (if not the) major challenge facing the designers of rationing guidelines is that of pluralism, i.e. the need to integrate considerations from a set of frameworks.
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2000|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(268), pages 543-77, November|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/about-the-faculty/departments/economics/research/discussion-papers.php
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:opn:wpaper:14. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (IT team member)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.