Defending Deontic Constraints and Prioritarianism: Two Remarks on Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Torbjörn Tännsjö has written a clear and thought-provoking book on healthcare priority setting. He argues that different branches of ethical theory—utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and prioritarianism—are in general agreement on real-world healthcare priorities, and that it is human irrationality that stands in the way of complying with their recommendations. While I am generally sympathetic to the overall project and line of argumentation taken by the book, this paper raises two concerns with Tännsjö’s argument. First, that he is wrong to set aside deontic constraints as irrelevant or as pointing in the same direction as consequentialism. Secondly, that his argument against prioritarianism in favor of utilitarianism is insufficient and under-developed. Given these problems, I conclude that we should welcome Tännsjö’s contribution but with these qualifications in mind.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Formosa P., Mackenzie C. (2014), “Nussbaum, Kant, and the Capabilities Approach to Dignity,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17(5): 875-892.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9487-y
Gericke C.A., Riesberg A, Busse R. (2005), “Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31:164-168.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.007138
Holtug N. (2010), Persons, interests, and justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580170.001.0001
Kant I. (1785/1996), Groundwork of The Metaphysics of morals, [in:] Gregor MJ. (ed.), Practical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McKerlie D. (1997), “Priority and time,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 27(3): 287-309.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1997.10715953
Nielsen L. (2021), “Pandemic Prioritarianism,” Journal of Medical Ethics, published online: 4 February 2021, doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106910.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106910
Nordenfelt L. (2004), “The Varieties of Dignity,” Health Care Analysis 12(2): 69-81.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HCAN.0000041183.78435.4b
Parfit D. (1997), “Equality or priority?” Ratio 10(3): 202-221.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00041
Segall S. (2016), Why Inequality Matters, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316416969
Sensen O. (2011), Kant on Human Dignity, De Gruyter, Berlin.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110267167
Tännsjö T. (2019), Setting Health-Care Priorities: What Ethical Theories Tell Us, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190946883.001.0001
Tännsjö T. (2015), “Utilitarianism or prioritarianism?” Utilitas 27(2): 240-250.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820815000011
Ubel P. (2001), Pricing life: Why it’s time for health care rationing, MIT Press, Cambridge (MA).