Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1996 21(1):69-98; DOI:10.1215/03616878-21-1-69
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (28)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goold, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Allocating Health Care: Cost-Utility Analysis, Informed Democratic Decision Making, or the Veil of Ignorance?

Susan D. Goold
University of Michigan

Assuming that rationing health care is unavoidable, and that it requires moral reasoning, how should we allocate limited health care resources? This question is difficult because our pluralistic, liberal society has no consensus on a conception of distributive justice. In this article I focus on an alternative: Who shall decide how to ration health care, and how shall this be done to respect autonomy, pluralism, liberalism, and fairness? I explore three processes for making rationing decisions: cost-utility analysis, informed democratic decision making, and applications of the veil of ignorance. I evaluate these processes as examples of procedural justice, assuming that there is no outcome considered the most just. I use consent as a criterion to judge competing processes so that rationing decisions are, to some extent, self-imposed. I also examine the processes’ feasibility in our current health care system. Cost-utility analysis does not meet criteria for actual or presumed consent, even if costs and health-related utility could be measured perfectly. Existing structures of government cannot creditably assimilate the information required for sound rationing decisions, and grassroots efforts are not representative. Applications of the veil of ignorance are more useful for identifying principles relevant to health care rationing than for making concrete rationing decisions. I outline a process of decision making, specifically for health care, that relies on substantive, selected representation, respects pluralism, liberalism, and deliberative democracy, and could be implemented at the community or organizational level.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
C. J. Redden
Rationing Care in the Community: Engaging Citizens in Health Care Decision Making
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1999; 24(6): 1363 - 1389.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
S. D. Goold
Money and Trust: Relationships between Patients, Physicians, and Health Plans
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1998; 23(4): 687 - 695.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
M. Schlesinger
Paradigms Lost: The Persisting Search for Community in U.S. Health Policy
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1997; 22(4): 937 - 992.
[Abstract] [PDF]




  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1996 by Duke University Press