Copy the page URI to the clipboard
Wailoo, Allan and Anand, Paul
(2005).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.036
Abstract
Substantial debate on the appropriate foundations of economic evaluation in health-care has been conducted between welfarists and non-welfarists in the health economics literature. This has focussed on defining and measuring appropriate outcomes. However, there has been little discussion of the importance of procedures. This paper examines six dimensions of procedure in relation to health-care rationing which are drawn from existing literature and previous empirical investigation. A survey of the general public was used to test for preferences for each dimension of procedure. Results show that for each dimension the importance differed according to the level of decision-making (we tested decision-making at the level of the individual doctor, health authority and government). We identified three distinct clusters of respondents who can be broadly described as "proceduralists" (47%), "pluralists" (15%) and "anti-consequentialists" (38%). The paper concludes that consequentialism is insufficient to provide the conceptual framework that public decision-making in health requires, although this does not mean that consequences are unimportant.
Viewing alternatives
Metrics
Public Attention
Altmetrics from AltmetricNumber of Citations
Citations from DimensionsItem Actions
Export
About
- Item ORO ID
- 4435
- Item Type
- Journal Item
- ISSN
- 0277-9536
- Keywords
- health-care rationing; empirical social choice; procedural fairness
- Academic Unit or School
-
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) > Social Sciences and Global Studies > Economics
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) > Social Sciences and Global Studies
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) - Research Group
- Innovation, Knowledge & Development research centre (IKD)
- Depositing User
- Users 13 not found.