Online research in philosophy

Many countries have not considered palliative care a public health problem. With limited resources, disease-oriented therapies and prevention measures take priority. In this paper, I intend to describe the moral framework for considering palliative care as a public health priority in resource-poor countries. A distributive theory of justice for health care should consider integrative palliative care as morally required as it contributes to improving normal functioning and preserving opportunities for the individual. For patients requiring terminal care , we are guided less by principles of justice and more by the duty to relieve suffering and society's commitment to protecting the professional's obligation to uphold principles of beneficence, compassion and non-abandonment. A fair deliberation process is necessary to allow these strong moral commitments to serve as reasons when setting priorities in resource poor countries.

Background: Inclusion or not of a treatment strategy in the publicly financed health care is really a matter of prioritisation. In Sweden priority setting decisions are governed by law in which it is stated that decisions should be guided by firstly the principle of need and secondly the principle of cost-effectiveness.

There are two puzzles about health care for children that need explanation. Why is it the sentimentality Americans express about children has not been backed by solid health care programs? If children are to have good health care, how can a case for their high priority be made, particularly in light of the fact that their health is the best of all age groups in the country? The first question is explored, but the second question is the focus of this paper. A priority system for health care is proposed, and at the same time an argument is presented for why children should have a high priority despite their generally good health.

During the last decade a technical approach has become increasingly influential in health care priority setting. The various country reports illustrate, however, that non-technical considerations cannot be avoided. As they often remain implicit in health care package decisions, this paper aims to make these normative judgements an explicit part of the procedure. More specifically, it aims to integrate different models of distributive justice as well as the principle of solidarity in four different phases of a decision-making procedure, and to identify important moral choices which present themselves. First four important justice models are discussed, then a justification is given for their inclusion in a four-step decision making procedure. This is followed by a discussion of different justice and solidarity problems—with their inherent conceptual difficulties in each of these stages. The paper concludes with a summary of the major moral choices that are to be made in health care package decisions.

The purpose of the article is to argue for the significance of a clarified goal of health care for the setting of priorities. Three arguments are explored. First, assessment of needs becomes necessary in so far as the principle of need should guide the priority-setting. The concept of health care need includes a goal component. This component should for rational reasons be identical with the goal of health care. Second, in order to use resources efficiently it is necessary to assess the effects of health care. It is not, however, a question of assessing whether there is an effect but a question of assessing whether there is the right effect. And what constitutes the right effect can only be determined in relation to the goal of the enterprise. Third, the health sector involves several groups of actors such as politicians, administrators, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, educationists and patients. It is common knowledge that successful teamwork requires an understanding of a common goal. The article ends with an example of a goal chosen from ethics.

Priority setting (also known as resource allocation or rationing) occurs at every level of every health system and is one of the most significant health care policy questions of the 21st century. Because it is so prevalent and context specific, improving priority setting in a health system entails improving it in the institutions that constitute the system. But, how should this be done? Normative approaches are necessary because they help identify key values that clarify policy choices, but insufficient because different approaches lead to different conclusions and there is no consensus about which ones are correct, and they are too abstract to be directly used in actual decision making. Empirical approaches are necessary because they help to identify what is being done and what can be done, but are insufficient because they cannot identify what should be done. Moreover, to be really helpful, an improvement strategy must utilize rigorous research methods that are able to analyze and capture experience so that past problems are corrected and lessons can be shared with others. Therefore, a constructive, practical and accessible improvement strategy must be research-based and combine both normative and empirical methods. In this paper we propose a research-based improvement strategy that involves combining three linked methods: case study research to describe priority setting; interdisciplinary research to evaluate the description using an ethical framework; and action research to improve priority setting. This describe-evaluate-improve strategy is a generalizable method that can be used in different health care institutions to improve priority setting in that context.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role that values play in priority setting through the use of EBP. It is important to be clear about the role of values at all levels of the decision making process. At one level, society as a whole has to make decisions about the kind of health provision that it wants. As is generally accepted, these priority setting questions cannot be answered by medical science alone but involve important judgements of value. However, as I hope to show values come into priority setting questions at another level, one not often explicitly recognised in much of the literature: that of the very definition of the effectiveness of treatments. This has important consequences for patient care. If we do not recognise that the effectiveness of a treatment involve subjective elements — a patient's own assessment of the value of the treatment — then this could lead to the belief that we can purchase one treatment that is the most effective for all patients. This might result in a detrimental reduction in the range of options that a patient is given with some patients not receiving the treatment that is most effective for them.

The aims of this paper are threefold. The first aim is to provide a critique of the reform proposal of the Harvard School of Public Health for Hong Kong's health care system through privatization of the public sector services. The second aim is to argue for the duty of society to guarantee every member equal access to a basic level of health care based on the values of equity, care and free choice. The third aim is to explore some suggestions about delivery structures and financial arrangements of a dual sector health care system which will better enable society to provide a basic level of health care that is sustainable and affordable, while being at the same time consistent with the values of care, equity and free choice.

In decisions about inclusion (or exclusion) of health care services in the benefit package, different interpretations of notions like health, health risk, disease, quality of life or necessary care often remain implicit. Yet they can lead to different benefit package decisions. After a brief discussion of these concepts in definitions of the goals of medicine, the various value-judgements implicit in interpretations of key notions in health care are analysed and conclusions are drawn with regard to the composition of decision making bodies at various levels. It is further argued that such a body needs to discuss the various interpretations of key-notions explicitly in the various phases of a priority-setting procedure so that more consistent choices can be made in health care priority setting.

As resources in health care are scarce, managers and clinicians must make difficult choices about what to fund and what not to fund. At the level of a regional health authority, limited approaches to aid decision makers in shifting resources across major service portfolios exist. A participatory action research project was conducted in the Calgary Health Region. Through five phases of action, including observation of senior management meetings, as well as two sets of one-on-one interviews and two focus groups, an approach to priority setting at the macro level within the health region was developed and implemented. The resulting macro level approach builds on the program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA) framework. Using a multi-disciplinary expert panel, about $45M (CAN) was released for the 2002/03 fiscal year and made available for re-allocation to service growth areas and the deficit. Important qualitative themes from the managers and clinicians informed both process development and refinement. The approach developed here not only facilitated re-allocation of resources, but also drew in both clinicians and managers to work together on this challenging task. The approach is pragmatic, transparent and evidence based, and should have application elsewhere.