Utilities vs. Rights to Publicly Provided Goods: Arguments and Evidence from Health-Care Rationing
Paul Anand and
No 14, Open Discussion Papers in Economics from The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics
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.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (18) Track citations by RSS feed
Published in Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(268), pages 543-77, November
There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:opn:wpaper:14
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Open Discussion Papers in Economics from The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by IT team member ().