Skip to main content
Log in

Priority rules as solutions to conflicting health care rights

  • Scientific Contribution
  • Published:
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1999-07-02-63/KAPITTEL_2#KAPITTEL_2.

  2. http://www.helsebiblioteket.no/retningslinjer/prioriteringsveiledere.

  3. https://www.nav.no/no/Person/Arbeid/Oppfolging+av+arbeidssokere/Relatert+informasjon/Raskere+behandling+hos+spesialist.346117.cms.

References

  • Andersson, Anna-Karin M. Forthcoming. Respectful adjudication of rights conflicts. In New essays on the nature of rights, ed. Mark McBride. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  • Aristotle. 1984. Nicomachean ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. In The complete works of Aristotle, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • 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.

  • Barry, Brian. 1995. Justice as impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink, David. 2003. Perfectionism and the common good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Daniels, Norman. 1994. Four unsolved rationing problems: A challenge. Hastings Centre Report 27(24): 27–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, Norman. 1985. Just health care. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, Norman. 2008. Just health. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1984. Rights as trumps. In Theories of rights, ed. Jeremy Waldron, 153–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1981. What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs 4(10): 283–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Juth, Niklas. 2015. Challenges for principles of need in health care. Health Care Analysis 1(23): 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1999-07-02-63/KAPITTEL_2#KAPITTEL_2. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2000-12-01-1208. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • http://www.helsebiblioteket.no/retningslinjer/prioriteringsveiledere. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • Helsedirektoratet. Prioriteringer i helsesektoren: verdigrunnlag, status og utfordringer. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet; 2012. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • https://www.nav.no/no/Person/Arbeid/Oppfolging+av+arbeidssokere/Relatert+informasjon/Raskere+behandling+hos+spesialist.346117.cms. Accessed 25 Aug 2016.

  • Kamm, Frances.M. 1993. Morality/mortality, volume one, death and whom to save from it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monstad, K., Lars Birger Engesaeter, and Birgitte Espehaug. 2014. Waiting time and socioeconomic status—An individual-level analysis. Health Economics 23(4): 446–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka, Michael. 2003. Libertarianism without inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sreenivasan, Gopal. 2010. Duties and their directions. Ethics 120: 465–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Hillel. 1994. An essay on rights. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, Richard H., and Cass.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 2008. Egalitarianism and the putative paradoxes of population ethics. Utilitas 20: 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne, Peter. 1997. Self-ownership and equality: Brute luck, gifts, universal domination, and leximin. Ethics 107: 321–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallentyne, Peter. 2002. Brute luck, option luck, and equality of initial opportunities. Ethics 112: 529–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Karin Andersson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andersson, AK., Lindemark, F. & Johansson, K.A. Priority rules as solutions to conflicting health care rights. Med Health Care and Philos 20, 67–76 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9728-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-016-9728-z

Keywords

Navigation