People’s health is hugely affected by where they live, their occupational status and their socio-economic position. It has been widely argued that the presence of such social determinants in health provides good reasons to reject luck egalitarianism as a theory of distributive justice in health. The literature provides different reasons why this responsibility-sensitive theory of distributive justice should not be applied to health. The critiques submit that the social circumstances undermine or remove people’s responsibility for their health; responsibility sensitive health (...) policies would adversely affect those who are worst off and; the luck egalitarian approach to health distracts from the important task of rectifying socio-economic influences on people's health and provides individualistic solutions to collective problems. But for each of these variants of the critique luck egalitarianism provides suitable answers. The literature on social determinants is no detriment to the project of applying luck egalitarianism to health. (shrink)

There is a growing trend in policy making of holding people responsible for their lifestyle-based diseases. This has sparked a heated debate on whether people are responsible for these illnesses, which has now come to an impasse. In this paper, I present a psychological model that explains why different views on people’s responsibility for their health exist and how we can reach a resolution of the disagreement. My conclusion is that policymakers should not perceive people as responsible while health care (...) personnel should take the opposing view. (shrink)

The objective of this article is to explore people’s attitudes toward responsibility in the allocation of public health care resources. Special attention is paid to conceptualizations of responsibility involving blame and sanctions. A representative sample of the Norwegian population was asked about various responsibility mechanisms that have been proposed in the theoretical literature on health care and personal responsibility, from denial of treatment to a tax on unhealthy consumer goods. Survey experiments were employed to study treatment effects, such as whether (...) fairness considerations affect attitudes about responsibility. We find that, overall, a substantial minority of the respondents find it fair to let the health care system sanction people—in one way or another—for voluntary behaviors that increase the risk of becoming ill. Quite surprisingly, we find that people are more prone to report that they should themselves be held responsible for unhealthy lifestyles than others. (shrink)

Whether it is fair to use personal responsibility of patients for their own health as a rationing criterion in healthcare is a controversial matter. A host of difficulties are associated with the concept of personal responsibility in the field of medicine. These include, in particular, theoretical considerations of justice and such practical issues as multiple causal factors in medicine and freedom of health behaviour. In the article, personal responsibility is evaluated from the perspective of several theories of justice. It is (...) argued that in a healthcare system based on both equality of opportunity and solidarity, responsible health behaviour can—in principle—be justifiably expected. While the practical problems associated with personal responsibility are important, they do not warrant the common knee-jerk refusal to think more deeply about responsibility for health as a means of allocating healthcare resources. In conclusion, the possibility of introducing personal responsibility as a fair rationing criterion is briefly sketched. (shrink)

The reuse of single use medical items is a complex ethical issue that many healthcare providers are faced with, for while recommendations and literature do not advocate the reuse of these items, the reality is that many single use items are frequently reused. Further, many healthcare workers are ethically divided over whether or not to share this information with their patients, or who should reveal this information. While single use items are convenient to use, the reality of the cost to (...) the healthcare system and the environment is being realised. Three distinct issues in regard to reuse of single use items are explored: patient consent, fiscal responsibility and environmental stewardship. Exploring these issues through the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism, contractarianism, and land ethic or holism can offer guidance in attending to the question “is once always enough?” Applying an integrated ethical framework can further assist healthcare providers and stakeholders to make informed, ethical choices in regard to choosing single use medical devices and items. Short, fictionalised narratives based on authentic events are used to illustrate the ethical context of the reuse issue. (shrink)

Individuals are at risk of acquiring untreatable agents of infection when they travel to countries where antibiotic-resistant agents of infection are prevalent, and particularly when they travel for healthcare. Uncertainty with respect to the overall political and economic consequences seems to underlie the reluctance of public health authorities to issue relevant travel advisories. The conditions of choice, the act of choice and the consequences of choice can each be a primary focus of ethical appraisal of public health policy. The ‘value (...) of choice’ account provided by Scanlon draws attention to the value of the choices that individuals are given, and the potential for reasonable rejection of policies that do not give adequate emphasis to the conditions of individual choice. There is both instrumental and symbolic value in informing people of the risk of acquisition of antibiotic-resistant microbes associated with health tourism. We cannot reasonably reject a principle of actively informing unless there are insurmountable countervailing reasons. These reasons should be explicit and subject to review. If health tourism is a concern then we might also consider how best to facilitate alternative choices. (shrink)

When it comes to determining how healthcare resources should be allocated, there are many factors that could—and perhaps should—be taken into account. One such factor is a patient’s responsibility for his or her illness, or for the behavior that caused it. Policies that take responsibility for the unhealthy lifestyle or its outcomes into account—responsibility-sensitive policies—have faced a series of criticisms. One holds that agents often fail to meet either the control or epistemic conditions on responsibility with regard to their unhealthy (...) lifestyles or their outcomes. Another holds that even if patients sometimes are responsible for these items, we cannot know whether a particular patient is responsible for them. In this article, we propose a type of responsibility-sensitive policy that may be able to surmount these difficulties. Under this type of policy, patients are empowered to change to a healthier lifestyle by being given what we call a ‘Golden Opportunity’ to change. Such a policy would not only avoid concerns about patients’ fulfilment of conditions on responsibility for their lifestyles, it would also allow healthcare authorities to be justified in believing that a patient who does not change her lifestyle is responsible for the unhealthy lifestyle. We conclude with a discussion of avenues for further work, and place this policy in the broader context of the debate on responsibility for health. (shrink)

The increasing awareness of personal health responsibility had led to the claim that patients with ‘self-inflicted’ conditions have less of a right to treatment at the public's expense than patients whose conditions arose from ‘uncontrollable’ causes. This paper suggests that regardless of any social decision as to the limits and scope of individual responsibility for health, the moral framework for discussing this issue is equality. In order to reach a consensus, discourse should be according to the common basis of all (...) theories of justice, Aristotle's formal principle of justice: ‘equals must be treated equally and unequals must be treated unequally, in proportion to the relevant inequality’. This paper deals with the question of whether and under what circumstances risk-taking behaviour could be regarded as a ‘relevant inequality’ with respect to the right to health care. Following a discussion of the relevant inequalities in health care, the conclusion is reached that the fact that the condition was avoidably caused by the patient and is therefore his or her fault can not be regarded necessarily as a relevant inequality. Therefore, the issue is one of societal support for health care; after defining relevant inequalities in this respect, the paper attempts to apply them to self-inflicted conditions. This analysis reveals that, in theory, it may be just to restrict societal support in such cases. However, the application of this conclusion requires proof of many factual claims—for which there is often very limited evidence. (shrink)

BackgroundThe idea that individuals are responsible for their health has been the focus of debate in the theoretical literature and in its concrete application to healthcare policy in many countries. Controversies persist regarding the form, substance and fairness of allocating health responsibility to the individual, particularly in universal, need-based healthcare systems.ObjectiveTo examine how personal health responsibility has been framed and rationalised in Norwegian key policy documents on priority setting.MethodsDocuments issued or published by the Ministry of Health and Care Services between (...) 1987 and 2018 were thematically analysed. We developed a predefined conceptual framework that guided the analysis. The framework included: the subject and object of responsibility, the level of conceptual abstraction, temporality, normative justificatory arguments and objections to the application of personal health responsibility.ResultsAs an additional criterion, personal health responsibility has been interpreted as relevant if: the patient’s harmful behaviour is repeated after receiving treatment, and if the success of the treatment is conditional on the patient’s behavioural change. When discussed as a retrospective criterion, considerations of reciprocal fairness have been dominant. When discussed as a prospective criterion, the expected benefit of treatment justified its relevance.ConclusionPersonal health responsibility appears to challenge core values of equality, inclusion and solidarity in the Norwegian context and has been repeatedly rejected as a necessary criterion for priority setting. However, the responsibility criterion seems to have some relevance in particular priority setting decisions. (shrink)

Public health policies designed to improve individual and population health may involve coercion. These coercive policies require ethical justification, and yet it is unclear in the public health ethics literature which ethical concepts might justify coercion, and what their limitations are in applying across contexts. In this paper, we analyse a number of concepts from Western bioethics, including the harm principle, paternalism, the public interest, and a duty of easy rescue. We find them plausible justifications for coercion in theory, but (...) when applied to case studies, including HIV testing in Malawi, vaccine mandates in South Africa, and prohibitions of antibiotic use in livestock in the EU, their limitations become clear. We argue that the context-specificity of ethical justifications for coercion has been overlooked, and there is more work needed to identify context-relevant ethical justifications for coercive policies in various settings and for various populations, rather than relying on universalising Western bioethical justifications across all contexts. (shrink)

Die epidemiologische Morbiditätsverschiebung der vergangenen Jahrzehnte hat verhaltensassoziierte Erkrankungen in das Zentrum der Public Health-Arbeit rücken lassen. Sowohl die Prävention Lebensstil-bedingter Erkrankungen als auch die Behandlung ihrer Folgen gehören angesichts steigender Morbiditäts- und Mortalitätszahlen zu den größten Herausforderungen für moderne Gesundheitssysteme. Eine Beeinflussung von Gesundheitsverhalten sowie dessen Berücksichtigung in der Mittelverteilung – prominent verhandelt in der medizinethischen Debatte um gesundheitliche Eigenverantwortung – sind jedoch kontrovers. Bisher konnte dafür noch kein allgemein akzeptiertes theoretisches Modell entwickelt werden. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der (...) in letzter Zeit im angloamerikanischen Raum intensiv im Public Health-Kontext verhandelte libertäre Paternalismus als ein solches Modell untersucht und einer kritischen Untersuchung zugeführt. Es wird geschlussfolgert, dass dieses Modell zwar argumentativ in wesentlicher Hinsicht unterbestimmt ist, jedoch viele willkommene und sinnvolle Impulse für die moderne Public Health-Politik liefern kann. (shrink)