IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right or an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives


  • McHugh, Neil

    (Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)

  • Baker, Rachel

    (Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)

  • Mason, Helen

    (Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)

  • Williamson, Laura

    (Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)

  • van Exel, Job

    (Institute of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands)

  • Deogaonkar, Rohan

    (Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)

  • Collins, Marissa

    (Institute for Applied Health Research, Glasgow Caledonian University)

  • Donaldson, Cam

    (Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, UK)


Health systems typically apply cost-utility frameworks in response to the moral dilemma of how best to allocate scarce health care resources. However, implementation of recommendations based on costs and benefit calculations and subsequent challenges have led to 'special cases' which enable the value attached to certain health benefits to be considered. Recent debate and research has focussed on the relative value of life extensions for people with terminal illnesses. This research investigates societal perspectives in relation to this issue, in the UK. Q methodology was used to elicit societal perspectives from a purposively selected sample of data-rich respondents. Participants ranked 49 statements of opinion (developed for this study), onto a grid, according to level of agreement. These 'Q sorts' were followed by brief interviews. Factor analysis was used to identify shared points of view (patterns of similarity between individuals' Q sorts). Analysis yielded an interpretable three factor solution. These rich, shared narratives can be broadly summarised as: i) 'a population perspective – value for money, no special cases', ii) 'an individual perspective – value of life, not cost', iii) 'a mixed perspective – value for money, individual values and the quality of life and death'. Ethical and policy implications emanate from the shared accounts as they reveal that the main philosophical positions that have long dominated debates on the just allocation of resources have a basis in public opinion. However, the existence of certain moral positions does not ethically imply, and pragmatically cannot mean, all are translated into policy. Our findings highlight normative tensions and the importance of critically engaging with these normative issues rather than adopting a procedural approach to public policy. Furthermore, it is necessary to understand the extent to which these perspectives are held in society and how they relate to specific questions of resource allocation, wider social value orientations and other characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • McHugh, Neil & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Williamson, Laura & van Exel, Job & Deogaonkar, Rohan & Collins, Marissa & Donaldson, Cam, 2014. "Extending life for people with a terminal illness: a moral right or an expensive death? Exploring societal perspectives," Health Economics Working Paper Series 201403, Glasgow Caledonian University, Yunus Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:yun:hewpse:201403

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Ruth Pearson, 1998. "Microcredit meets social exclusion: learning with difficulty from international experience," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(6), pages 811-822.
    2. Pronyk, Paul M. & Harpham, Trudy & Busza, Joanna & Phetla, Godfrey & Morison, Linda A. & Hargreaves, James R. & Kim, Julia C. & Watts, Charlotte H. & Porter, John D., 2008. "Can social capital be intentionally generated? A randomized trial from rural South Africa," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(10), pages 1559-1570, November.
    3. Joanna Coast & Richard Smith & Paula Lorgelly, 2008. "Should the capability approach be applied in Health Economics?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(6), pages 667-670, June.
    4. Helen Haugh & Michael Kitson, 2007. "The Third Way and the third sector: New Labour's economic policy and the social economy," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(6), pages 973-994, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. #HEJC for 24/10/2014
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2014-10-15 10:00:29


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

    Cited by:

    1. Chamberlain, Charlotte & Owen-Smith, Amanda & MacKichan, Fiona & Donovan, Jenny L. & Hollingworth, William, 2019. "“What’s fair to an individual is not always fair to a population”: A qualitative study of patients and their health professionals using the Cancer Drugs Fund," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 706-712.

    More about this item



    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:yun:hewpse:201403. 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: (Karen McDairmant). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.