Advertisement

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 67–76 | Cite as

Priority rules as solutions to conflicting health care rights

  • Anna-Karin AnderssonEmail author
  • Frode Lindemark
  • Kjell Arne Johansson
Scientific Contribution

Abstract

Recent health legislation in Norway significantly increases access to specialist care within a legally binding time frame. The paper describes the contents of the new legislation and introduces some of the challenges with proliferations of rights to health care. The paper describes some of the challenges associated with the proliferation of legal rights to health care. It explains the benefits of assessing the new law in the light of a rights framework. It then analyses the problematic aspects of establishing additional priority rules as solutions to rights conflicts. It then defends adequacy criteria for acceptable priority rules when such rules are unavoidable. It finally defends our proposed method and explores concrete applications.

Keywords

Health law Prioritization Public health Rights 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge insightful and constructive comments from Jeremy Aidem and two referees of this journal. Gopal Sreenivasan, Peter Vallentyne, and participants of the work-in-progress seminar at the Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, The University of Bergen, provided very valuable comments on previous versions of this article.

References

  1. Andersson, Anna-Karin M. Forthcoming. Respectful adjudication of rights conflicts. In New essays on the nature of rights, ed. Mark McBride. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1984. Nicomachean ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. In The complete works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arneson, Richard J. 1989. Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies 56: 77–93. Reprinted in Equality: Selected readings. 1997. ed. Louis Pojman and Richard Westmoreland, 229–241, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Barry, Brian. 1995. Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brink, David. 2003. Perfectionism and the common good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Broome, John. 1988. Goodness, fairness and QALYs. In Philosophy and medical welfare, ed. J. Bell, and S. Mendus, 57–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Daniels, Norman, and James Sabin. 1997. Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic liberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurers. Philosophy & Public Affairs 303(26): 323–325.Google Scholar
  8. Daniels, Norman. 1994. Four unsolved rationing problems: A challenge. Hastings Centre Report 27(24): 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniels, Norman. 2008. Just health. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dworkin, Ronald. 1984. Rights as trumps. In Theories of rights, ed. Jeremy Waldron, 153–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(10): 283–345.Google Scholar
  13. Juth, Niklas. 2014. For the sake of justice: Should we prioritize rare diseases?. Health Care Analysis. doi: 10.1007/s10728-014-0284-5.Google Scholar
  14. Juth, Niklas. 2015. Challenges for principles of need in health care. Health Care Analysis 1(23): 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helsedirektoratet. Prioriteringer i helsesektoren: verdigrunnlag, status og utfordringer. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2012. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.Google Scholar
  16. Kamm, Frances.M. 1993. Morality/mortality, volume one, death and whom to save from it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lipsky, Michael. 1969. Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. IRP Discussion Papers No. 48–69: 45. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP), University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  18. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Monstad, K., Lars Birger Engesaeter, and Birgitte Espehaug. 2014. Waiting time and socioeconomic status—An individual-level analysis. Health Economics 23(4): 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Otsuka, Michael. 2003. Libertarianism without inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ringard, A., A. Sagan, I. Sperre Saunes, and A.K. Lindahl. 2013. Norway: Health system review. Health Systems in Transition 15: 1–162.Google Scholar
  22. Sreenivasan, Gopal. 2010. Duties and their directions. Ethics 120: 465–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steiner, Hillel. 1994. An essay on rights. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Thaler, Richard H., and Cass.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2008. Egalitarianism and the putative paradoxes of population ethics. Utilitas 20: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vallentyne, Peter. 1997. Self-ownership and equality: Brute luck, gifts, universal domination, and leximin. Ethics 107: 321–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vallentyne, Peter. 2002. Brute luck, option luck, and equality of initial opportunities. Ethics 112: 529–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wall, Steven. 2012. Perfectionism in Moral and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/perfectionism-moral/. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.
  29. Wenar, Leif. Rights. 2015. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/rights/. Accessed 2 Oct 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna-Karin Andersson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frode Lindemark
    • 1
  • Kjell Arne Johansson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Research Group on Global Health PrioritiesThe University of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University HospitalHelse Bergen HFBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations