Seeking Community Views on Allocation of Scarce Resources in a Pandemic in Australia: Two Methods, Two Answers
This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.
KeywordsDeliberation Community participation Pandemic Resource allocation Public engagement
We acknowledge additional members of the FluViews team: Janet Hiller, Rod Givney, Christine Andrews, Peng Bi, Ann Koehler and Heather Petty. Our partner in this research was the South Australian Department of Health, whose support we appreciate. Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council via its Linkage Grant program (LP 0775341).
- Blaxland, J. 2002. Information-Era Manoeuvre: The Australian-Led Mission to East Timor. Journal of Information Warfare 1(3): 94–106.Google Scholar
- Department of Health and Ageing. 2008a. Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
- Department of Health and Ageing. 2008b. Media release: Securing the nation against potential threats. Canberra:Australian Government.Google Scholar
- Department of Health and Ageing. 2009a. Media release: Federal government adds more antivirals to National Medicines Stockpile. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
- Department of Health and Ageing. 2009b. New pandemic phase protect, Canberra: Australian Government. 17th June. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/news-170609. Accessed 12 Apr 2010.
- Health and Human Services (HHS USA). 2005. Citizen voices on pandemic flu choices: A report of the public engagement pilot project on Pandemic Influenza. ppc.unl.edu/documents/PEPPPI_FINAL REPORT _DEC_ 2005 .pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.Google Scholar
- Hegarty, D. 2001. Monitoring peace in Solomon Islands. SSGM Working Paper 01/4. In State Society and Governance in Melanesia Project. RSPAS, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
- Irish Council of Bioethics. 2006. Ethical Dilemmas in a Pandemic: Results of the ICB/TNS MRBI Survey. In Proceedings of the Irish Council for bioethics conference. Dublin. www.bioethics.ie/uploads/docs/PandemicProceedings.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
- Pan-Canadian Public Health Network. June 2007. Annex 3.7-Report on citizen and stakeholder deliberative dialogues on the use of antivirals for prophylaxis. Pan-Canadian public health network council report and policy recommendations on the use of antivirals for prophylaxis during an influenza pandemic. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/prapip-uappi/index-eng.php. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
- Roxon, N. 2009. Transcript of press conference with Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, Australian Minister for Health and Ageing, 22 July. http://www.rcna.org.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=50173&A=SearchResult&SearchID=1273333&ObjectID=50173&ObjectType=6. Accessed 11 Apr 2010.
- StataCorp. 2005. Stata statistical software: Release 9. College Station: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
- The Daily Telegraph, 11 June 2009. WHO points to Australian cases over swine flu pandemic. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/classmate/who-points-to-australian-cases-over-swine-flu-pandemic/story-e6frewti-1225732672797. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
- Warren, M.E. 2009. Two trust based uses of minipublics in democracy. In Democracy and the deliberative society conference. University of York.Google Scholar