Healthcare priority-setting institutions have good reason to want to demonstrate that their decisions are morally justified—and those who contribute to and use the health service have good reason to hope for the same. However, finding a moral basis on which to evaluate healthcare priority-setting is difficult. Substantive approaches are vulnerable to reasonable disagreement about the appropriate grounds for allocating resources, while procedural approaches may be indeterminate and insufficient to ensure a just distribution. In this paper, we set out a complementary, (...) coherence-based approach to the evaluation of healthcare priority-setting. Drawing on Rawls, we argue that an institutional priority-setter’s claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the extent to which its many normative commitments are mutually supportive and free from dissonance; that is, on the ability to establish narrow reflective equilibrium across the normative content of a priority-setter’s policy and practice. While we do not suggest that the establishment of such equilibrium is sufficient for moral justification, we argue that failure to do so might—like the proverbial canary in the coalmine—act as a generalised warning that something is awry. We offer a theoretical argument in support of this view and briefly outline a practical method for systematically examining coherence across priority-setting policy and practice. (shrink)

Background As the UK’s main healthcare priority-setter, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has good reason to want to demonstrate that its decisions are morally justified. In doing so, it has tended to rely on the moral plausibility of its principle of cost-effectiveness and the assertion that it has adopted a fair procedure. But neither approach provides wholly satisfactory grounds for morally defending NICE’s decisions. In this study we adopt a complementary approach, based on the proposition that (...) a priority-setter's claim to moral justification can be assessed, in part, based on the coherence of its approach and that the reliability of any such claim is undermined by the presence of dissonance within its moral system. This study is the first to empirically assess the coherence of NICE’s formal approach and in doing so to generate evidence-based conclusions about the extent to which this approach is morally justified. Methods The study is grounded in the theory, methods and standards of empirical bioethics. Twenty NICE policy documents were coded to identify and classify the normative commitments contained within NICE technology appraisal policy as of 31 December 2021. Coherence was systematically assessed by attempting to bring these commitments into narrow reflective equilibrium (NRE) and by identifying sources of dissonance. Findings Much of NICE policy rests on coherent values that provide a strong foundation for morally justified decision-making. However, NICE’s formal approach also contains several instances of dissonance which undermine coherence and prevent NRE from being fully established. Dissonance arises primarily from four sources: i) NICE’s specification of the principle of cost-effectiveness; ii) its approach to prioritising the needs of particular groups; iii) its conception of reasonableness in the context of uncertainty, and iv) its concern for innovation as an independent value. Conclusion At the time of analysis, the level of coherence across NICE policy provides reason to question the extent to which its formal approach to technology appraisal is morally justified. Some thoughts are offered on why, given these findings, NICE has been able to maintain its legitimacy as a healthcare priority-setter and on what could be done to enhance coherence. (shrink)

The World Health Assembly has encouraged WHO member-states to establish capacity in health technology assessment (HTA) as a support for achieving universal health coverage (UHC). Simultaneously, the WHO has stated that UHC is “a practical expression of the concern for health equity and the right to health.” This has prompted questions about potential tensions between priority-setting efforts and the right to health on the road to UHC. South Africa (SA) is an ideal setting in which to explore how the priority-setting (...) work of an HTA body may be integrated with an existing rights framework. (shrink)

Following the death on April 19, 2015 of Freddie Gray from injuries sustained while unarmed and in police custody, many citizens of Baltimore took to the streets and the National Guard was called into the city. A 2017 article published in the American Journal of Public Health measured the effect of this civil unrest on maternal and child health. I argue that this research does not acknowledge the full range of motivations, behaviors, aims and values that may have been inherent (...) in this unrest. I first describe the article’s characterization of Baltimore’s unrest as community violence. I then provide a negative argument against employing this characterization alone, before providing positive arguments for two alternative characterizations—as protest and apt anger. Finally, I discuss upshots of considering these alternatives. Broadly, while viewing civil unrest as community violence focuses exclusive attention on victims of unrest, these alternatives direct attention to unrest participants, with implications for public health research and practice. While I focus on Baltimore’s 2015 unrest, the proposals raised here apply wherever civil unrest occurs. (shrink)

Volume 19, Issue 6, June 2019, Page 71-73.

There is a special need for solidarity at the global level to address global health disparities. Ter Meulen argues that solidarity must complement justice, and is, in fact, more fundamental than justice to the arrangement of health care practices. We argue that PG/SHG, though a theory of justice, is fundamentally synergistic with solidarity. We relate PG/SHG to Jodi Dean’s conceptual work on reflective solidarity, contrasted with conventional solidarity, as an approach to transnational solidarity that dovetails with PG/SHG. We argue that (...) PG/SHG meets both the need for solidarity at the global level and the need for solidarity within theories of the arrangement of health care practices. (shrink)