Advertisement

Health Care Analysis

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 397–409 | Cite as

Representation or Reason: Consulting the Public on the Ethics of Health Policy

  • Caroline Mullen
Original Article

Abstract

Consulting the public about the ethical approaches underlying health policies can seem an appealing means of addressing concerns about limited public participation in development of health policy. However ambiguity surrounds questions of whether, or how consultation can really contribute to more defensible decisions about ethical aspects of policy. This paper clarifies the role and limits of public consultation on ethics, beginning by separating different senses of defensibility in decisions on ethics. Defensibility of ethical decisions could be understood either in the sense of legitimacy in virtue of reflecting the opinions of the public whose interests are affected, or in the sense of being able to withstand and respond to challenges presented in ethical debate. The question then is whether there are forms of consultation which have the potential to realise more defensible decisions in either of these senses. Problems of adequately accounting for the views of those affected by policy decisions casts doubt on the plausibility of using consultation as a means of determining the opinions of the public. Consultation can have a role by bringing new ideas and challenges to debate, although it is uncertain whether this will increase the defensibility of any decision on ethics.

Keywords

Consultation Democracy Ethics Moral argument Health policy Public participation 

References

  1. 1.
    Anscombe, G. E. M. (1967). Who is Wronged? The Oxford Review, 5, 16–17.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Culyer, A. J. (1997). The rationing debate: Maximising the health of the whole community. British Medical Journal, 314, (7081). (Available at http://www.bmj.com/archive/7081ed2.htm, Accessed 09/06/2007).
  3. 3.
    Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dworkin, R. (1996). Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25(2), 89–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Farrington-Douglas, J., & Allen, J. (2005). Equitable choices for health. IPPR (Available at http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=321, Accessed 08.06.2007).
  6. 6.
    Harris, J. (1988). More and better justice. In J. M. Bell & S. Mendus (Eds.), Philosophy and medical welfare (1st ed., pp. 75–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harris, J. (1995). Could we hold people responsible for their own adverse health? Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 12, 147–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris, J. (1997). The case against: What the principal objective of the NHS should really be. British Medical Journal, 314, 669–672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heysse, T. (2006). Consensus and power in deliberative democracy. Inquiry, 49(3), 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levitt, M. (2003). Public consultation in bioethics. What’s the point of asking the public when they have neither scientific nor ethical expertise? Health Care Analysis, 11(4), 15–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Patient and public involvement policy. (Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=14, Accessed 31 May 2007).
  12. 12.
    Parfit, D. (1978). Innumerate ethics. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7(4), 285–301.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Press Association (26 December 2006) Blair plan to consult people panels. BBC News Online (Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6209163.stm, Accessed 31 May 2007).
  14. 14.
    Rawlins, M. D., & Culyer, A. J. (2004). The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and its value judgements. British Medical Journal, 329, 224–227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wakeford , T. (2002). Citizen’s Juries: A radical alternative for social research. In Social Research Update, 37 (Available at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU37.html, Accessed 31 May 2007).

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Global EthicsUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations