The involvement of the public in the governance of genomics has become a topic of growing interest among scholars, practitioners and policy-makers. The implementation of public involvement programmes may be quite expensive, and the design and evaluation of public participation is a matter of controversy. Thus, this paper examines the justifications for public participation in the governance of genomic research to help understand whether public involvement is worthwhile and to provide a guide to the design of public participation. I identify (...) four primary justifications in support of public involvement. I argue that three of them have serious flaws: neither an increase in the stability of institutions, nor the positive effects on the virtues of individuals, nor the epistemic merits of participatory activities provide a solid ground for the engagement of the public in the governance of genomics. However, the ideal of legitimacy in the exercise of coercive power appears to lend strong support to public involvement programmes. Given that the reasons why public involvement is sought shape the design of the participatory activities, restricting the range of valid justifications promises to simplify the task of designing and evaluating public involvement. (shrink)

Die finanziellen Ressourcen im deutschen Gesundheitssystem sind begrenzt. Diese Mittelknappheit führt im Rahmen der ärztlichen Tätigkeit zu medizinischen, ökonomischen, juristischen und ethischen Problemen, welche sich in den kommenden Jahren weiter verschärfen dürften. Aus ethischer Perspektive sind die Probleme einer gerechten Verteilung knapper Ressourcen sowie mögliche Rollen- oder Gewissenskonflikte der ärztlichen Profession besonders relevant. Mit Hilfe von qualitativen Interviewstudien lässt sich der aktuelle ärztliche Umgang mit der Mittelknappheit in der klinischen Versorgung in seiner Komplexität und seinen ethisch relevanten Aspekten untersuchen. An (...) fünf Kliniken mit unterschiedlichem Versorgungsauftrag wurden Tiefeninterviews mit fünfzehn leitenden Ärzten in den Bereichen Intensivmedizin und Kardiologie durchgeführt. Die auf Tonband aufgezeichneten Interviews wurden nach dem Verfahren der Grounded Theory ausgewertet. Die Ärzte berichten ein heterogenes Spektrum von Einflussfaktoren, Konsequenzen und Reaktionen im Zusammenhang mit ihrem Handeln bei Mittelknappheit. Zuteilungskriterien wie der medizinische Nutzen oder die Kosteneffektivität werden von den befragten Ärzten sehr unterschiedlich interpretiert und führen damit möglicherweise zu inkonsistenten Allokationsentscheidungen. Gleichzeitig bestätigen die Untersuchungen aber auch, dass die Ärzte nicht leichtfertig mit den Allokationsentscheidungen umgehen, im Gegenteil: Die Mittelknappheit und die dadurch hervorgerufenen Verteilungsprobleme können zu Gewissenskonflikten, emotionalem Stress und Gefühlen der Überforderung führen. Um Lösungskonzepte für ethische Probleme im Umgang mit der Mittelknappheit in der klinischen Praxis entwickeln und erfolgreich implementieren zu können, müssen die in dieser Arbeit systematisch zusammengestellten Verständnisweisen, Einflussfaktoren und Konsequenzen im Zusammenhang mit dem Kostendruck berücksichtigt werden. (shrink)

In health care priority setting different criteria are used to reflect the relevant values that should guide decision-making. During recent years there has been a development of value frameworks implying the use of multiple criteria, a development that has not been accompanied by a structured conceptual and normative analysis of how different criteria relate to each other and to underlying normative considerations. Examples of such criteria are unmet need and severity. In this article these crucial criteria are conceptually clarified and (...) analyzed in relation to each other. We argue that disease-severity and condition-severity should be distinguished and we find the latter concept better reflects underlying normative values. We further argue that unmet need does not fulfil an independent and relevant role in relation to condition-severity except for in some limited situations when having to distinguish between conditions of equal severity. (shrink)

In healthcare priority settings, early access to treatment before reimbursement decisions gives rise to problems of whether negative decisions for cost‐effectiveness reasons should result in withdrawing treatment, already accessed by patients. Among professionals there seems to be a strong attitude to distinguish between withdrawing and withholding treatment, viewing the former as ethically worse. In this article the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment for reasons of cost effectiveness is explored by analysing the doing/allowing distinction, different theories of justice, consequentialist and (...) virtue perspectives. The authors do not find any strong reasons for an intrinsic difference, but do find some reasons for a consequentialist difference, given present attitudes. However, overall, such a difference does not, all things considered, provide a convincing reason against withdrawal, given the greater consequentialist gain of using cost‐effective treatment. As a result, patients should be properly informed when given early access to treatment, that such treatment can be later withdrawn following a negative reimbursement decision. (shrink)

The 2009 pandemic of influenza A was relatively mild, but a subsequent outbreak of pandemic influenza could be much worse. According to projections from the Department of Health and Human Services, the potential health consequences of a severe influenza pandemic in the United States could be literally overwhelming: up to 1.9 million deaths; 90 million people sick; 45 million people needing outpatient care; 9.9 million people hospitalized, of whom 1.485 million would need treatment in an intensive care unit ; and (...) 742,500 patients needing mechanical ventilators. Even a less cataclysmic, moderate pandemic would result in 209,000 deaths; 90 million people sick; 45 million people needing outpatient care; 865,000 people hospitalized, of whom 128,750 would need treatment in an ICU; and 64,875 patients needing mechanical ventilators. (shrink)

In all countries where health care access is considered a social right, regulation is both a tool of performance improvement as well as an instrument of social justice. Both social (equity in access) and economical (promoting competition) regulation are at stake due to the nature of the good itself. Different modalities of regulation do exist and usually new regulatory cycles include the creation of stronger regulatory agencies. Indeed, health care regulation is rising steadily in most developed countries as a consequence (...) of the introduction of the New Public Management perspective to provide essential public goods.Health care is delivered by different organisations with very different cultural backgrounds—public and private (profit and non-profit)—that should be accountable for their decisions. Control by regulatory agencies is instrumental to accomplish this goal. However, there is some dispute with regards the degree of regulatory autonomy. The objective of this paper is to determine if independent regulatory agencies (IRAs) are effective in carrying out health care regulation. The authors apply Walshe’s analytical framework to the Regulatory Authority of Health (Portugal) to answer the question if independent regulation works.In conclusion, the two year experience of the Regulatory Authority of Health is important not only because the primary goals of independent regulation were achieved but also because this authority is now a full partner in the health care sector. However, independent agencies need to develop strong mechanisms of accountability because good regulatory governance is the paradigm of this institutional innovation. (shrink)

The lack of economic sustainability of most healthcare systems and a higher demand for quality and safety has contributed to the development of regulation as a decisive factor for modernisation, innovation and competitiveness in the health sector. The aim of this paper is to determine the importance of the principle of public accountability in healthcare regulation, stressing the fact that sunshine regulation—as a direct and transparent control over health activities—is vital for an effective regulatory activity, for an appropriate supervision of (...) the different agents, to avoid quality shading problems and for healthy competition in this sector. Methodologically, the authors depart from Kieran Walshe’s regulatory theory that foresees healthcare regulation as an instrument of performance improvement and they articulate this theory with the different regulatory strategies. The authors conclude that sunshine regulation takes on a special relevance as, by promoting publicity of the performance indicators, it contributes directly and indirectly to an overall improvement of the healthcare services, namely in countries were citizens are more critical with regard to the overall performance of the system. Indeed, sunshine regulation contributes to the achievement of high levels of transparency, which are fundamental to overcoming some of the market failures that are inevitable in the transformation of a vertical and integrated public system into a decentralised network where entrepreneurialism appears to be the predominant culture. (shrink)

Explicit forms of rationing have already been implemented in some countries, and many of these prioritization systems resort to Norman Daniels’ “accountability for reasonableness” methodology. However, a question still remains: is “accountability for reasonableness” not only legitimate but also fair? The objective of this paper is to try to adjust “accountability for reasonableness” to the World Health Organization’s holistic view of health and propose an evolutionary perspective in relation to the “normal” functioning standard proposed by Norman Daniels. To accomplish this (...) purpose the authors depart from the “normal” functioning standard to a model that promotes effective opportunity for everyone in health care access, because even within the “normal” functioning criteria some treatments and medical interventions should have priority upon others. Equal opportunity function is a mathematical function that helps to hierarchize moral relevant necessities in health care according to this point of view. It is concluded, first, that accountability for reasonableness is an extremely valuable tool to address the issue of setting limits in health care; second, that what is called in this paper “equal opportunity function” might reflect how accountability for reasonableness results in fair limit-setting decisions; and third, that this methodology must be further specified to best achieve fair limit-setting decisions. Indeed, when resources are especially scarce the methodology suggested in this paper might allow not only prioritizing in an “all or nothing” basis but can contribute to a hierarchy system of priorities in health care. (shrink)

The increasing costs of healthcare delivery led to different political and administrative approaches trying to preserve the core values of the welfare state. This approach has well documented weaknesses namely with regard to healthcare rationing. The objective of this paper is to evaluate if independent healthcare regulation is an important tool with regard to the construction of fair processes for setting limits to healthcare. Methodologically the authors depart from Norman Daniels’ and James Sabin’s theory of accountability for reasonableness and try (...) to determine if new regulatory models—namely independent agencies—perform better with regard to the public disclosure of the reasons and rationales of healthcare rationing. In publicly financed healthcare systems independent regulation is an important tool to assure fair and reasonable procedures of prioritising services. In accordance with the principle of public accountability, independent regulatory agencies are particularly well suited to assure publicity of the decision-making processes, relevance of the rationale involved and particularly mechanisms for challenge and dispute resolution regarding limit setting decisions. It follows that independent healthcare regulation could be regarded not only as an instrument for performance improvement but also as a tool of social justice. The authors conclude by stating that accountability for reasonableness should be regarded as a landmark of any healthcare reform. And therefore regulators have the social task of assuring that the rationales for limit-setting decisions are clearly accessible to the public. (shrink)

Many publicly-funded health systems apply cost-benefit frameworks in response to the moral dilemma of how best to allocate scarce healthcare resources. However, implementation of recommendations based on costs and benefit calculations and subsequent challenges have led to ‘special cases’ with certain types of health benefits considered more valuable than others. Recent debate and research has focused on the relative value of life extensions for people with terminal illnesses. This research investigates societal perspectives in relation to this issue, in the UK.

Triage is a widespread principle for prioritizing patients in emergency departments. The purpose of triage is to ensure that in emergency situations, whenever medical demand exceeds medical supply, limited resources should be directed to the case with the greatest clinical need. Triage fulfills this purpose by ranking patients according to how acute their condition is and then giving priority to the most acute ones. In this paper, I argue that this current practice of triage needs to be supplemented. Contemporary triage (...) is based on a principle of preserving patients’ core capabilities, which is relevant when it comes to prioritizing acute patients above sub‐acute ones, but not for prioritizing among sub‐acute patients, which is the largest group of emergency patients. Henceforth, I propose to supplement triage with what I term the real dialogue model, a framework that, when combined with enhanced professional autonomy for clinical decision‐makers, enables fair prioritizing among sub‐acute patients. (shrink)

Evidence-based medicine has always required integration of patient values with ‘best’ clinical evidence. It is widely recognized that scientific practices and discoveries, including those of EBM, are value-laden. But to date, the science of EBM has focused primarily on methods for reducing bias in the evidence, while the role of values in the different aspects of the EBM process has been almost completely ignored.

Non‐governmental aid programs are an important source of health care for many people in the developing world. Despite the central role non‐governmental organizations play in the delivery of these vital services, for the most part they either lack formal systems of accountability to their recipients altogether, or have only very weak requirements in this regard. This is because most NGOs are both self‐mandating and self‐regulating. What is needed in terms of accountability is some means by which all the relevant stakeholders (...) can have their interests represented and considered. An ideally accountable decision‐making process for NGOs should identify acceptable justifications and rule out unacceptable ones. Thus, the point of this paper is to evaluate three prominent types of justification given for decisions taken at the Dutch headquarters of Médecins sans Frontières. They are: population health justifications, mandate‐based justifications and advocacy‐based justifications. The central question at issue is whether these justifications are sufficiently robust to answer the concerns and objections that various stakeholders may have. I am particularly concerned with the legitimacy these justifications have in the eyes of project beneficiaries. I argue that special responsibilities to certain communities can arise out of long‐term engagement with them, but that this type of priority needs to be constrained such that it does not exclude other potential beneficiaries to an undesirable extent. Finally, I suggest several new institutional mechanisms that would enhance the overall equity of decisions and so would ultimately contribute to the legitimacy of the organization as a whole. (shrink)

Changes in modern societies originate the perception that ethical behaviour is essential in organization’s practices especially in the way they deal with aspects such as human rights. These issues are usually under the umbrella of the concept of social responsibility. Recently the Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO on Social Responsibility and Health has addressed this concept of social responsibility in the context of health care delivery suggesting a new paradigm in hospital governance. The objective of this paper (...) is to address the issue of corporate social responsibility in health care, namely in the hospital setting, emphasising the special governance arrangements of such complex organisations and to evaluate if new models of hospital management (entrepreneurism) will need robust mechanisms of corporate governance to fulfil its social responsiveness. The scope of this responsible behaviour requires hospitals to fulfil its social and market objectives, in accordance to the law and general ethical standards. Social responsibility includes aspects like abstention of harm to the environment or the protection of the interests of all the stakeholders enrolled in the deliverance of health care. In conclusion, adequate corporate governance and corporate strategy are the gold standard of social responsibility. In a competitive market hospital governance will be optimised if the organization culture is reframed to meet stakeholders’ demands for unequivocal assurances on ethical behaviour. Health care organizations should abide to this new governance approach that is to create organisation value through performance, conformance and responsibility. (shrink)