Evidence, Emotion and Eminence: A Qualitative and Evaluative Analysis of Doctors’ Skills in Macroallocation
- 23 Downloads
In this analysis of the ethical dimensions of doctors’ participation in macroallocation we set out to understand the skills they use, how they are acquired, and how they influence performance of the role. Using the principles of grounded moral analysis, we conducted a semi-structured interview study with Australian doctors engaged in macroallocation. We found that they performed expertise as argument, bringing together phronetic and rhetorical skills founded on communication, strategic thinking, finance, and health data. They had made significant, purposeful efforts to gain skills for the role. Our findings challenge common assumptions about doctors’ preferences in argumentation, and reveal an unexpected commitment to practical reason. Using the ethics of Paul Ricoeur in our analysis enabled us to identify the moral meaning of doctors’ skills and learning. We concluded that Ricoeur’s ethics offers an empirically grounded matrix for ethical analysis of the doctor’s role in macroallocation that may help to establish norms for procedure.
KeywordsMacroallocation Priority setting Ethics Paul Ricoeur Grounded moral analysis Physicians Skills
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 1.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2014). Medical Workforce 2012. National health workforce series. Canberra: AIHW.Google Scholar
- 2.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2016). Australia’s Medical Workforce 2015. Canberra.Google Scholar
- 3.Australian Medical Association. (2017). AMA code of ethics 2004. Editorially Revised 2006. Revised 2016. https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/AMA. Accessed April 22, 2017.
- 4.Belcher, H. (2014). Power, politics and health care. In J. Germov (Ed.), Second opinion: An introduction to health sociology (5th ed., pp. 356–379). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 5.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginnners. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
- 6.Brody, H. (2009). The future of bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Bujak, J. (2008). Inside the physician mind: Finding common ground with doctors. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.Google Scholar
- 9.Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 11.Daniels, N. (2016). Resource allocation and priority setting. In D. H. Barrett, L. H. Ortmann, A. Dawson, C. Saenz, A. Reis, & G. Bolan (Eds.), Public health ethics (1st ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 12.Danis, M., Clancy, C. M., & Churchill, L. R. (2002). Introduction. In M. Danis, C. M. Clancy, & L. R. Churchill (Eds.), Ethical dimensions of health policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 15.Dowie, J. (2007). Decision analysis: The ethical approach to most health decision making. In R. E. Ashcroft & I. Wiley (Eds.), Principles of health care ethics (pp. 577–583). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 20.Eckard, N., Janzon, M., & Levin, L. A. (2014). Use of cost-effectiveness data in priority setting decisions: Experiences from the national guidelines for heart diseases in Sweden. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 3(6), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Emanuel, E. J. (2002). Foreword. In M. Danis, C. M. Clancy, & L. R. Churchill (Eds.), Ethical dimensions of health policy (pp. vii–xi). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 25.Fischer, F. (2007). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: Integrating empirical and normative arguments. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics & methods. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- 27.Freidson, E. (2013). Professionalism: The third logic. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 29.Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics & methods. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- 31.Haynes, A. S., Derrick, G. E., Redman, S., Hall, W. D., Gillespie, J. A., Chapman, S., et al. (2012). Identifying trustworthy experts: How do policymakers find and assess public health researchers worth consulting or collaborating with. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32665.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Hoedemaekers, R., & Dekkers, W. (2003). Key concepts in health care priority setting. Health Care Analysis, 11(4), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:hcan.0000010060.43046.05.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.Homan, M. S. (2004). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world (Vol. 3). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
- 40.Kilner, J. F. (2004). Healthcare resources, allocation of: I. Macroallocation. In S. G. Post (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bioethics (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1098–1107). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.Google Scholar
- 43.Klein, R., Day, P., & Redmayne, S. (1996). Managing scarcity: Priority setting and rationing in the National Health Service. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 46.Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- 51.Pellegrino, E. D., & Thomasma, D. C. (1993). The virtues in medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 52.Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (P. Weaver & J. Wilkinson, Trans.). Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
- 54.Ricœur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 55.Ricœur, P. (2000). The just. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 56.Ricœur, P. (2007). Reflections on the just. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 57.Russell, J., Greenhalgh, T., Byrne, E., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Recognizing rhetoric in health care policy analysis. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t]. Journal of Health Services & Research Policy, 13(1), 40–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.006029.
- 63.Thistlethwaite, J., & Spencer, J. (2008). Professionalism in medicine. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.Google Scholar