Utilities versus Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health Care Rationing

Paul Anand and Allan Wailoo

Economica, 2000, vol. 67, issue 268, 543-577

Abstract: This paper challenges the QALY maximizing approach to rationing health care on the grounds of the consequentialist (and sometimes approximately utilitarian) moral framework on which it is based. An alternative methodological approach is suggested and, in addition to consequences, four normative determinants of health care entitlements are identified: rights, public opinion, social contracts and community values. Survey evidence is presented which shows support for these alternative frameworks and a rejection of consequentialism. The paper suggests that a (if not the ) major challenge facing the designers of rationing guidelines is that of pluralism, i.e. the need to integrate considerations from a set of frameworks.

Date: 2000
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.00224

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:bla:econom:v:67:y:2000:i:268:p:543-577

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0013-0427

Access Statistics for this article

Economica is currently edited by Frank Cowell, Tore Ellingsen and Alan Manning

More articles in Economica from London School of Economics and Political Science Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().