Beyond Utilitarianism: A Method for Analyzing Competing Ethical Principles in a Decision Analysis of Liver Transplantation

Michael L. Volk, Anna S. F. Lok, Peter A. Ubel and Sandeep Vijan
Additional contact information
Michael L. Volk: Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Anna S. F. Lok: Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Peter A. Ubel: Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Center for Behavioral and Decision Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Sandeep Vijan: Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Practice Management and Outcomes Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Medical Decision Making, 2008, vol. 28, issue 5, 763-772

Abstract: Background: The utilitarian foundation of decision analysis limits its usefulness for many social policy decisions. In this study, the authors examine a method to incorporate competing ethical principles in a decision analysis of liver transplantation for a patient with acute liver failure (ALF). Methods. A Markov model was constructed to compare the benefit of transplantation for a patient with ALF versus the harm caused to other patients on the waiting list and to determine the lowest acceptable 5-y posttransplant survival for the ALF patient. The weighting of the ALF patient and other patients was then adjusted using a multiattribute variable incorporating utilitarianism, urgency, and other principles such as fair chances. Results. In the base-case analysis, the strategy of transplanting the ALF patient resulted in a 0.8% increase in the risk of death and a utility loss of 7.8 quality-adjusted days of life for each of the other patients on the waiting list. These harms cumulatively outweighed the benefit of transplantation for an ALF patient having a posttransplant survival of less than 48% at 5 y. However, the threshold for an acceptable posttransplant survival for the ALF patient ranged from 25% to 56% at 5 y, depending on the ethical principles involved. Discussion. The results of the decision analysis vary depending on the ethical perspective. This study demonstrates how competing ethical principles can be numerically incorporated in a decision analysis.

Keywords: Key words: liver transplantation; acute liver failure; ethical theory; decision support techniques. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X08316999 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:763-772

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08316999

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().