Should relational effects be considered in health care priority setting?

indirect effects need-based health care priority setting significant others

Journal

Bioethics
ISSN: 1467-8519
Titre abrégé: Bioethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8704792

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2023
Historique:
revised: 14 04 2023
received: 24 10 2022
accepted: 19 05 2023
medline: 7 8 2023
pubmed: 21 6 2023
entrez: 21 6 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

It is uncontroversial to claim that the extent to which health care interventions benefit patients is a relevant consideration for health care priority setting. However, when effects accrue to the individual patient, effects of a more indirect kind may accrue to other individuals as well, such as the patient's children, friends, or partner. If, and if so how, such relational effects should be considered relevant in priority setting is contentious. In this paper, we illustrate this question by using disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease as a case in point. The ethical analysis begins by sketching the so-called prima facie case for ascribing moral weight to relational effects and then moves on to consider a number of objections to it. We argue that, whereas one set of objections may be dismissed, there is another set of arguments that poses more serious challenges for including relational effects in priority setting.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37340937
doi: 10.1111/bioe.13189
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

668-673

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Auteurs

Erik Gustavsson (E)

Department of Culture and Society, Division of Philosophy and Applied Ethics, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Niklas Juth (N)

Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Centre for Healthcare Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Gerd Lärfars (G)

Health and Medical Care Administration, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden.

Pauline Raaschou (P)

Pharmacology Unit, Department of Medicine Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Lars Sandman (L)

Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, The National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH