Skip to main content
Log in

The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Condorcet Jury Theorem was the first and remains a central model of collective decision making in both social and political theory. Advanced as an argument for small group or “jury” decision processes over those of individual experts, its axioms and conclusions have been a subject of rigorous debate in recent years. Those considerations have typically been mathematical and theoretical, however, rather than concrete and descriptive. This paper considers the applicability of the Jury Theorem in light of data collected in a series of focus groups organized at The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto, Canada) to review organ transplant eligibility criteria. With each of four focus groups we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to elicit views of hospital members and users on the relative importance of criteria commonly used to define organ transplant eligibility. Analysis of the priority measures obtained provided clear insights into issues of consensus, the role of experts, and the process of collective decision making by heterogeneous juries. The conclusions may be of use to those interested in democratic process and social theory in all contexts - legal, moral, and political - involving small group decision making.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austen-Smith, D., and J. Banks. (1996). “Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” American Political Science Review 90, 34–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, S. (1996). “Condorcet's Jury Theorem and the Reliability of Majority Voting,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(3), 229–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, S., and H. Nurmi. (1996). “Group Decision Quality and Social Choice Theory,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(3), 207–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, S. (1994). “Evaluation of Some Weighted Majority Decision Rules Under Dependent Voting,” Mathematical Social Sciences 28, 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, P. J. (1989). “Majority Systems and the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” The Statistician 38, 181–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, Lynton K. (1996). “Science Assumptions and Misplaced Certainty in Natural Resources and Environmental Problem Solving,” in John Lemons (ed.), Scientific Uncertainty and Environmental Problem Solving. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 394–42, 395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, R. D., S. Staschak, W. T. Green, and L. G. Vargas. (1989). “A Method to Allocate Livers for Orthotopic Transplantation: An Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Bangkok, December 6-8.

  • Corley, M. E., and G. Sneed. (1994). “Criteria in the Selection of Organ Transplant Recipients,” Heart and Lung 23(6), 453–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, C. (1995, March 28) “Supporters Rally for Teen's Transplant,” Calgary Herald, B3.

  • Donohue, T. (1995, March 22) “Morally Outrageous,” Ottawa Citizen, A12.

  • Delsohn, B., and T. Philip. (1995, August 11). “Activist Takes on Fight for her Life,” Sacramento Bee, A1.

  • Edwards, W., and B. F. Hutton. (1994). “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 306–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estrin, R. (1996, November 15). “Liver Transplant Policy to Favor Patients Most Likely to Survive,” The Washington Post, A3.

  • Grofman, B., and S. L. Feld. (1988). “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective,” American Political Science Review 82(2), 567–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamalainen, Raimo (Personal communication to Ridgley). Address: Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland. E-mail: Raimo@hut.fi.

  • Hoppe, A. (1995, June 16). “Mickey Mantle's Lucky Liver,” San Francisco Chronicle, A29.

  • Hubert, C. (1997, May 25). “Transplant Pioneer Loses Battle for Life,” Sacramento Bee, A3.

  • Koch, T. (1988). The Limits of Principle: Deciding Who Lives and What Dies. Westport, CT: Praeger Books, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, T., and M. Rowell. (1998). “The Dream of Consensus: Finding Common Ground in a Bioethical Context,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19(5).

  • Koch, T., and M. Rowell. (1997). “A Pilot Study on Transplant Eligibility Criteria: Valuing the Stories in Numbers,” Pediatric Nursing 23(2), 160–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, T. (1996). “Normative and Prescriptive Criteria: The Efficacy of Organ Transplantation Allocation Protocols,” Theoretical Medicine 17(1), 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, G. (1996, November 15). “In Shift, Prospects for Survival will Decide Liver Transplants,” The New York Times, A1, A26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolata, G. (1995, June 11). “Transplants, Morality, and Mickey Mantle,” New York Times, Section 4, 5.

  • Majeske, R. A. (1995, August 5). “Criteria for Transplant Candidate Selection,” BIOMED-L conference list.

  • Miller, N. R. (1996). “Information, Individual Errors, and Collective Performance: Empirical Evidence on the Condorcet Jury Theorem,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 5(3), 211–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitzan, S., and J. Paroush. (1985). Collective Decision Making. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Also quoted in Berg (1994).

  • Obrisch, M. E., and J. L. Levenson. (1991). “Psychosocial Evaluation of Heart Transplant Candidates: An International Survey of Process, Criteria, and Outcomes,” Journal of Heart Lung Transplant 10, 948–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, B. (1997). “Commentary on Koch and Rowell Article: Changes in Liver Transplantation,” Pediatric Nursing 23(2), 167–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pueschel, S. M. (1989). “Ethical Considerations in the Life of a Child with Down Syndrome,” Issues in Law and Medicine 5(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.

  • Schmidt, Frederick F. (1985). “Consensus, Respect, and Weighted Averaging,” Synthese 62, 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L., and B. Grofman. (1984). “Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the Presence of Interdependencies,” Public Choice 43, 329–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L. A., and R. O. Kroger. (1995). “Discourse Analysis in Research on Aging,” Canadian Journal on Aging 14(1), 82–99.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koch, T., Ridgley, M. The Condorcet's Jury Theorem in a Bioethical Context: The Dynamics of Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 9, 379–392 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712331820

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008712331820

Navigation