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
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
668-673Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.