Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2015; 77(03): e44-e50
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1384542
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Resource Allocation in Health Care and the Role of Personal Autonomy

Ressourcenallokation im Gesundheitswesen und die Rolle individueller Autonomie
A. Gandjour
1   Management Department, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 October 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Resource allocation decisions in health care require the consideration of ethical values. Major ethical theories include Amartya Sen’s capability approach, Norman Daniels’s theory of justice for health, and preference utilitarian theory. This paper argues that while only preference utilitarian theory explicitly considers the impact of an individual’s actions on others, all 3 theories agree in terms of providing individual autonomy. Furthermore, it shows that all 3 theories emphasise the role of informed preferences in securing individual autonomy. Still, stressing personal autonomy has limited direct implications for priority setting. 2 priority rules for resource allocation could be identified: 1) to give priority to patients with mental disability (over those with pure physical disability); and 2) to give priority to patients with a large expected loss of autonomy without treatment.

Zusammenfassung

Allokationsentscheidungen im Gesundheitswesen erfordern die Berücksichtigung ethischer Werte. Zu wichtigen ethischen Theorien gehören der Capability Approach (Sen), die Theorie einer gerechten Gesundheitsversorgung (Daniels) und der Präferenzutilitarismus. Diese Arbeit argumentiert, dass alle 3 Theorien hinsichtlich der Notwendigkeit, individuelle Autonomie sicherzustellen, übereinstimmen. Sie zeigt, dass die Betonung individueller Autonomie mentalen Erkrankungen Priorität einräumt.

Key words

health care - social justice - personal autonomy

Schlüsselwörter

Gesundheitswesen - soziale Gerechtigkeit - individuelle Autonomie
 

  • References

  • 1 Allport GW. Personality: a psychological interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1937
    Google Scholar
  • 2 American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Amer Psychiatric Pub Inc 2013;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anand S, Peter F. Equal opportunity. In: Cohen J, Rogers J. eds Is inequality bad for our health?. Boston, MA: Beacon Press; 2000: 48-52
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Badhwar NK. Is realism really bad for you? A realistic response. J Philos 2008; 105: 85-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Collopy BJ. Autonomy in long-term care: some crucial distinctions. Gerontologist 1988; 28 (Suppl) 10-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Daniels N. Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1985
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Daniels N. Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1996. a
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Daniels N, Light DW, Caplan RL. Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform. Oxford University Press; 1996. b
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Daniels N, Sabin JE. Setting limits fairly: can we learn to share medical resources?. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Daniels N. Democratic equality: Rawls’s complex egalitarianism. In: Freeman S. (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003: 241-277
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Daniels N. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Daniels N. Accountability for reasonableness and the Citizens Council. In: Littlejohns P, Rawlins M. (eds.). Patients, the public and the priorities in health care. Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2010: 139-148
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Dolan P, Cookson R, Ferguson B. Effect of discussion and deliberation on the public’s views of priority setting in health care: focus group study. BMJ 1999; 318: 916-919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW. Utilitarian theories reconsidered: common misconceptions, more recent developments, and health policy implications. Health Care Anal 2003; 11: 229-244
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gandjour A. Is it rational to pursue utilitarianism?. Ethical Perspect 2007; 14: 139-158
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gandjour A. Mutual dependency between capabilities and functionings in Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Soc Choice Welfare 2008; 31: 345-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gandjour A. Theoretical foundation of patient v. population preferences in calculating QALYs. Med Decis Making 2010; 30: E57-E63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gauthier CC. Philosophical foundations of respect for autonomy. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1993; 3: 21-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Harsanyi J. Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In: Sen A, Williams B. eds Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982: 39-62
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Harsanyi J. Essays on ethics, social behaviour, and scientific explanation. Springer; 1976
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lewinsohn-Zamir D. The objectivity of well-being and the objectives of property law. N Y Univ Law Rev 2003; 78: 1669-1754
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McIver S. Healthy debate?. An independent evaluation of citizens’ juries in health settings. King’s Fund; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Mill JS. On liberty. London: JW Parker; 1859
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Nord E, Pinto JL, Richardson J et al. Incorporating societal concerns for fairness in numerical valuations of health programmes. Health Econ 1999; 8: 25-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nozick R. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Post F. Creativity and psychopathology. A study of 291 world-famous men. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 165: 22-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Rawls J. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Rawls J. Justice as fairness: a restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Rice T. Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care. J Med Ethics 2001; 27: 240-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ruger JP. Health and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ruger JP. Health capability: conceptualization and operationalization. Am J Public Health 2010; 100: 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Sen AK. Equality of what?. In: McMurrin S. (ed.). Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Sen AK. Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Sen A. The standard of living: lecture II, lives and capabilities. In: Hawthorn G, (ed.). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Sen AK. Justice: means versus freedom. Philos Public Aff 1990; 19: 111-121
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Sen AK. Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1992
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Sen AK. Markets and freedoms: achievements and limitations of the market mechanism in promoting individual freedoms. Oxf Econ Pap 1993; 45: 519-541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Sen AK. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Sen AK. Social justice and distribution of income. In: Atkinson AB, Bourguignon F. eds Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Sen AK. Symposium on Amartya Sen’s philosophy: 4: reply. Econ Philos 2001; 17: 51-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Sen AK. Why health equity?. Health Econ 2002; 11: 659-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Sen AK. Elements of a theory of human rights. Philos Public Aff 2004; a 32: 315-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Sen AK. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2004. b
    Google Scholar
  • 46 Sen AK. The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Singer P. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Wagstaff A. QALYs and the equity-efficiency trade-off. J Health Econ 1991; 10: 21-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Williams A. Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ 1997; 6: 117-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar