Adaptation to illness, and its relevance for distribution in health care, has been the subject of vigorous debate. In this paper I examine an aspect of this discussion that seems so far to have been overlooked: that some illnesses are difficult, or even impossible, to adapt to. This matters because adaptation reduces suffering. Illness severity is a priority setting criterion in several countries. When considering severity, we are interested in the extent to which an illness makes a person worse-off. I (...) argue that no plausible theory of well-being can disregard suffering when determining to what extent someone is worse-off in terms of health. We should accept, all else equal, that adapting to an illness makes the illness less severe by reducing suffering. Accepting a pluralist theory of well-being allows us to accept my argument, while still making room for the possibility that adaptation is sometimes, all things considered, bad. Finally, I argue that we should conceptualize adaptability as a feature of illness, and thereby account for adaptation on a group level for the purposes of priority setting. (shrink)

Illness severity is a priority setting criterion in several countries. Age seems to matter when considering severity, but perhaps not small age differences. In the following article we consider Small Differences : small differences in age are not relevant when considering differential illness severity. We show that SD cannot be accommodated within utilitarian, prioritarian or egalitarian theories. Attempting to accommodate SD by postulating a threshold model becomes exceedingly complex and self-defeating. The only way to accommodate SD seems to be to (...) accept some form of relevance view, where some age differences are irrelevant. This view can accommodate SD, but at the expense of consistent priority orderings. Severity thus becomes unsuitable for systematic decision-making. We argue that SD should be dismissed and that we should accept a continuous relationship between severity of illness and age. (shrink)

The overarching aim of this article is to scrutinize how severity can work as a qualifier for the moral impetus of malady. While there is agreement that malady is of negative value, there is disagreement about precisely how this is so. Nevertheless, alleviating disease, injury, and associated suffering is almost universally considered good. Furthermore, the strength of a diseased person’s moral claims for our attention and efforts will inevitably vary. This article starts by reflecting on what kind of moral impetus (...) malady incites. We then analyze how severity may qualify this impetus. We do so by discussing the relationship between severity and need, well-being and disvalue, death, urgency, rule of rescue, and distributive justice. We then summarize our thoughts about severity as a moral qualifier. We conclude that severity is, and should continue to be seen, as a morally significant concept that deserves continued attention in the future. (shrink)

This is a brief response to ‘Do not despair about severity—yet’ by Barraet al. It argues that they have no serious criticisms of Daniel Hausman’s essay, ‘The Significance of Severity’” and that indeed their work lends further support to his view that there is no justification for prioritising severity. As policy-akers, Barra and his coauthors are more constrained by popular attitudes, which apparently favour prioritising severity.

Despite clinical evidence of drug superiority, therapeutic modalities, like combination immunotherapy, are mostly considered cost-ineffective due to their high costs per life year(s) gained. This paper, taking an ethical stand, reevaluates the standard cost-effectiveness analysis with that of the more recent justice-enhanced methods and concludes by pointing out the shortcomings of the current methodologies.

This article discusses the relationship between two theories about the badness of death, the Life-Comparative Account and the Gradualist Account, and two methods of operationalizing severity in health care priority setting, Absolute Shortfall and Proportional Shortfall. The aim is that theories about the badness of death can influence and inform the idea of the basis of severity as a priority setting criterion. I argue that there are strong similarities between the Life-Comparative Account and Absolute Shortfall, and since the Life-Comparative Account (...) is one of the most reasonable accounts of the badness of death, this provides some support for using Absolute Shortfall. I also argue that it is difficult to find support for Proportional Shortfall from theories about the badness of death, and also, that it is difficult to find support for Gradualist Account from theories about severity. (shrink)

Priority setting of scarce resources in healthcare is high on the agenda of most healthcare systems implying a need to develop robust foundations for making fair allocation decisions. One central factor for such decisions in needs-based systems, following both empirical studies and theoretical analyses, is severity. However, it has been noted that severity is an under-theorized concept. One such aspect is how severity should relate to temporality. There is a rich discussion on temporality and distributive justice, however, this discussion needs (...) to be adapted to the practical and ethical requirements of healthcare priority setting principles at mid-level. In this article, we analyze how temporal aspects should be taken into account when assessing severity as a modifier for cost-effectiveness. We argue that when assessing the severity of a condition, we have reason to look at complete conditions from a time-neutral perspective, meaning that we take the full affectable stretch of the condition into account without modifying severity as patients move through the temporal stretch and without discounting the future. We do not find support for taking the ‘shape’ of a condition into account per se, e.g. whether the severity has a declining or inclining curve, or that severity is intermittent rather than continuous. In order to take severity seriously, we argue that we have reason to apply a quantified approach where every difference in severity should impact on priority setting. In conclusion, we find that this approach is practically useful in actual priority setting. (shrink)

Background: Severity plays an essential role in healthcare priority setting. Still, severity is an under-theorised concept. One controversy concerns whether severity should be risk- and/or time-sensitive. The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of this question. Methods: A reflective equilibrium approach is used, where judgements and arguments concerning severity in preventive situations are related to overall normative judgements and background theories in priority-setting, aiming for consistency. Analysis, discussion, and conclusions: There is an argument for taking the (...) risk of developing a condition into account, and we do this when we consider the risk of dying in the severity assessment. If severity is discounted according to risk, this will ‘dilute’ severity, depending on how well we are able to delineate the population, which is dependent on the current level of knowledge. This will potentially have a more far-reaching effect when considering primary prevention, potentially the de-prioritisation of effective preventive treatments in relation to acute, less-effective treatments. The risk arguments are dependent on which population is being assessed. If we focus on the whole population at risk, with T 0 as the relevant population, this supports the risk argument. If we instead focus on the population of as-yet (at T 0 ) unidentified individuals who will develop the condition at T 1, risk will become irrelevant, and severity will not be risk sensitive. The strongest argument for time-sensitive severity (or for discounting future severity) is the future development of technology. On a short timescale, this will differ between different diagnoses, supporting individualised discounting. On a large timescale, a more general discounting might be acceptable. However, we need to also consider the systemic effects of allowing severity to be risk- and time-sensitive. (shrink)

In Norway, priority for health interventions is assigned on the basis of three official criteria: health benefit, resources, and severity. Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have mainly happened through intersectoral public health efforts such as lockdowns, quarantines, information campaigns, social distancing and, more recently, vaccine distribution. The aim of this article is to evaluate potential priority setting criteria for public health interventions. We argue in favour of the following three criteria for public health priority setting: benefit, resources and improving the (...) well-being of the worse off. We argue that benefits and priority to the worse off may reasonably be understood in terms of individual well-being, rather than only health, for public health priority setting. We argue that lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic support our conclusions. Keywords: COVID-19, Prioritarianism, Priority Setting, Public Health, Severity. (shrink)

Allocating on the basis of need is a distinguishing principle in publicly funded health care systems. Resources ought to be directed to patients, or the health program, where the need is considered greatest. In Sweden support of this principle can be found in health care legislation. Today however some domains of what appear to be health care needs are excluded from the responsibilities of the publicly funded health care system. Corrections of eye disorders known as refractive errors is one such (...) domain. In this article the moral legitimacy of this exception is explored. Individuals with refractive errors need spectacles, contact lenses or refractive surgery to do all kinds of thing, including participating in everyday activities, managing certain jobs, and accomplishing various goals in life. The relief of correctable visual impairments fits well into the category of what we typically consider a health care need. The study of refractive errors does belong to the field of medical science, interventions to correct such errors can be performed by medical means, and the skills of registered health care professionals are required when it comes to correcting refractive error. As visual impairments caused by other conditions than refractive errors are treated and funded within the public health care system in Sweden this is an inconsistency that needs to be addressed. (shrink)

During the recent debates on whether to prioritize health care workers for COVID-19 vaccines, two main lines of arguments emerged: one centered on maximizing health and one centered on reciprocity. In this article, we scrutinize the argument from reciprocity. The notions of fittingness and proportionality are fundamental for the act of reciprocating. We consider the importance of these notions for various arguments from reciprocity, showing that the arguments are problematic. If there is a plausible argument for reciprocity during the pandemic, (...) this is most likely one that centers on the risk that health care workers take on while working. We argue that the scope of this argument is not plausibly extended only to health care workers. Other essential workers at risk are in the position to make the same arguments. We also argue that there is no compelling argument from reciprocity that makes reciprocating with vaccines, rather than by other means, necessary. Furthermore, allocating vaccines based on reciprocity will conflict with utility-maximizing. Given the weak state of the arguments, overriding concerns for utility seem unreasonable. (shrink)