Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 237–246 | Cite as

Justice and the allocation of healthcare resources: should indirect, non-health effects count?

  • Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen
  • Sigurd Lauridsen
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Alternative allocations of a fixed bundle of healthcare resources often involve significantly different indirect, non-health effects. The question arises whether these effects must figure in accounts of the conditions under which a distribution of healthcare resources is morally justifiable. In this article we defend a Scanlonian, affirmative answer to this question: healthcare resource managers should sometimes select an allocation which has worse direct, health-related effects but better indirect, nonhealth effects; they should do this when the interests served by such a policy are more urgent than the healthcare interests better served by an alternative allocation. We note that there is a prima facie case for the claim that such benefits (and costs) are relevant—i.e. they are real benefits, and in other contexts our decisions can permissibly be guided by them. We then proceed to rebut three lines of argument that might be thought to defeat this prima facie case: they appeal to fairness, the Kantian Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself, and the equal moral worth of persons, respectively.

Keywords

Health care rationing Health priorities Social justice and resource allocation Fairness Kantian ethics Indirect benefits Equality Scanlon Equal worth 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thanks two anonymous reviewers of this journal for some very helpful comments.

References

  1. Anderson, E. 1999. What is the point of equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angell, M. 1993. The doctor as double agent. Journal of Kennedy Institute of Ethics 3: 279–286.Google Scholar
  3. Boorse, C. 1975. On the distinction between disease and illness. Philosophy & Public Affairs 5: 49–68.Google Scholar
  4. Boorse, C. 1977. Health as a theoretical concept. Philosophy of Science 44: 542–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock, D.W. 1989. Justice, health care, and the elderly. Philosophy & Public Affairs 18: 297–312.Google Scholar
  6. Brock, D.W. 2003a. Ethical issues in the use of cost effectiveness analysis for the prioritization of health care resources. In Making choices in health: WHO guide to cost-effectiveness analysis, ed. T. Tan-Torres Edejer, et al., 289–312. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  7. Brock, D.W. 2003b. Separate spheres and indirect benefits. BioMed Central. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/2003:1/1/4. Accessed 2 July 2007.
  8. Brooks, R. 1996. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 37.1: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broome, J. 1994. Fairness versus doing the most good. The Hastings Center Report 24: 36–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Broome, J. 1999. Fairness. In Ethics out of economics, ed. J. Broome, 111–122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brouwer, W.B.F., N.J. van Exel, R.M. Balthussen, and F.F. Rutten. 2006. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar–or is it? Value in Health 5: 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cookson, R., and P. Dolan. 2000. Principles of justice in health care rationing. Journal of Medical Ethics 26: 323–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Culyer, A.J., and H. Simpson. 1980. Externality models and health: A rueckblick over the last twenty years. Economic Record 56: 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels, N. 1981. Health-care needs and distributive justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10: 146–179.Google Scholar
  15. Daniels, N. 1985. Just health care, 39–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Daniels, N. 1996. Justice and justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daniels, N. 2001. Justice, health, and healthcare. The American Journal of Bioethics 1: 2–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Daniels, N. 2008. What is the special importance of health? In Just health care, ed. N. Daniels, 29–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dworkin, R. 2000. Justice and the high costs of health. In Sovereign virtue, ed. R. Dworkin, 307–319. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, J. 1988a. Life: Quality, value, and justice. Health Policy 10: 259–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, J. 1988b. More and better justice. In Philosophy and medical welfare, ed. S. Mendus, et al., 5–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hope, T., D. Sprigings, and R. Crisp. 1993. ‘Not clinically indicated’: Patients’ interests or resource allocation? British Medical Journal 306: 379–381.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Horsman, J., W. Furlong, D. Feeny, and G. Torrance. 2003. The health utilities index (HUI®): Concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1: 54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurley, S. 2006. Distributive justice and health. In Egalitarianism: New essays on the nature and value of equality, ed. N. Holtug and K. Lippert-Rasmussen, 308–334. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kagan, S. 1989. The limits of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kamm, F.M. 1993. Morality, mortality, vol 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kamm, F.M. 1996. Morality, mortality, vol 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kant, I. 2002 [1785]. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Binghamton: Vail-Ballou Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kass, L.R. 1985. Toward a more natural science: Biology and human affairs. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Koopmanschap, M.A., et al. 1995. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. Journal of Health Economics 14: 171–189.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Korsgaard, C.M. 1996. Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Labelle, R.J., and J.E. Hurley. 1992. Implications of basing health-care resource allocations on cost-utility analysis in the presence of externalities. Journal of Health Economics 3: 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lippert-Rasmussen, K. 2007. Why killing some people is more seriously wrong than killing others. Ethics 117: 716–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McMahan, J. 2003. The ethics of killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. McMahan, J. 2008. Challenges to human equality. Journal of Ethics 12: 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, D. 1998. Equality and justice. In Ideals of equality, ed. A. Mason. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, C.J.L. 1994. Quantifying the burden of disease: The technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. In Global comparative assessment in the health sector: Disease burden, expenditures, and intervention packages, ed. C.J.L. Murray, et al. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  38. O’Neill, O. 1989. Constructions of reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Olsen, J.A., and J. Richardson. 1999. Production gains from healthcare: what should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses. Social Science and Medicine 49: 17–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Olsen, J. A., Richardson, J., Dolan, P., and Menzel, P. 2000. The moral relevance of personal characteristics in setting health care priorities. Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Working Paper 134.Google Scholar
  41. Pellegrino, E. 1997. Managed care at the bedside: How do we look in the moral mirror. Journal of Kennedy Institute of Ethics 7: 321–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peterson, P.G. 1999. Gray dawn: The global aging crisis. Foreign Affairs 78: 43–55.Google Scholar
  43. Pogge, T.W. 1989. Realizing rawls, 182. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Railton, P. 1984. Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs 13: 134–171.Google Scholar
  45. Scanlon, T.M. 1999. What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Scanlon, T.M. 2003. Preference and urgency. In The difficulty of tolerance, ed. T.M. Scanlon, 70–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scheffler, S. 1982. The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Scheffler, S. 2003. What is egalitarianism? Philosophy & Public Affairs 31: 5–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Segall, S. 2007. Is health care (still) special? Journal of Political Philosophy 15: 342–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trappenburg, M. 2000. In defence of pure pluralism: Two readings of Walzer’s Spheres of Justice. Journal of Political Philosophy 8: 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Walters, S.J., and J.E. Brazier. 2003. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1: 4. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Wilkinson, R., and M. Marmot. 2003. Social determinants of health: The solid facts, 2nd ed. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  54. Williams, B. 1973. Problems of the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut for StatskundskabAarhus UniversitetÅrhus CDenmark
  2. 2.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations