The limited impact of indeterminacy for healthcare rationing: how indeterminacy problems show the need for a hybrid theory, but nothing more
A notorious debate in the ethics of healthcare rationing concerns whether to address rationing decisions with substantial principles or with a procedural approach. One major argument in favour of procedural approaches is that substantial principles are indeterminate so that we can reasonably disagre...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2016
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2016, Volume: 42, Issue: 1, Pages: 22-25 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1816152676 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230426115835.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2015-102937 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1816152676 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1816152676 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Herlitz, Anders |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The limited impact of indeterminacy for healthcare rationing: how indeterminacy problems show the need for a hybrid theory, but nothing more |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a A notorious debate in the ethics of healthcare rationing concerns whether to address rationing decisions with substantial principles or with a procedural approach. One major argument in favour of procedural approaches is that substantial principles are indeterminate so that we can reasonably disagree about how to apply them. To deal with indeterminacy, we need a just decision process. In this paper I argue that it is a mistake to abandon substantial principles just because they are indeterminate. It is true that reasonable substantial principles designed to deal with healthcare rationing can be expected to be indeterminate. Yet, the indeterminacy is only partial. In some situations we can fully determine what to do in light of the principles, in some situations we cannot. The conclusion to draw from this fact is not that we need to develop procedural approaches to healthcare rationing, but rather that we need a more complex theory in which both substantial principles and procedural approaches are needed. | ||
| 601 | |a Problem | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 42(2016), 1, Seite 22-25 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:42 |g year:2016 |g number:1 |g pages:22-25 |
| 856 | |3 Volltext |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014287 |x JSTOR | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102937 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/42/1/22.abstract |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185606613 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1816152676 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053651 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#32F1DA2534D4410620CE556C72D45649F5113308 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 866 |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/44014287 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 |b inherited from superior work | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||