Contemporary Political Theory

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 296–317 | Cite as

Procedural justice and democratic institutional design in health-care priority-setting

  • Claudia Landwehr
Article

Abstract

Health-care goods are goods with peculiar properties, and where they are scarce, societies face potentially explosive distributional conflicts. Animated public and academic debates on the necessity and possible justice of limit-setting in health care have taken place in the last decades and have recently taken a turn toward procedural rather than substantial criteria for justice. This article argues that the most influential account of procedural justice in health-care rationing, presented by Daniels and Sabin, is indeterminate where concrete properties of rationing institutions are concerned. Such properties inscribe substantial norms into institutions. These norms can derive validity only from democratic majority decisions, which must be seen as an instance of pure procedural justice. We therefore have to move the discussion to a meta-level and ask how concrete properties of institutions are being chosen. I suggest four criteria for sufficiently democratic institutional design choice and conclude that as institutional properties are likely to have effects on the resulting distribution of health care, design choices should be empirically informed and taken both democratically and deliberately.

Keywords

distributive justice procedural justice health care institutional design democratic legitimacy 

References

  1. Aaron, H. and Schwartz, W.B. (1990) Rationing health care – The choice before us. Science 247 (4941): 418–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleby, J., Devlin, N., Parkin, D., Buxton, M. and Chalkidou, K. (2009) Searching for cost effectiveness thresholds in the NHS. Health Policy 91 (3): 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, M. and van der Grinten, T. (2003) The Netherlands. In: C. Ham and R. Glenn. (eds.) Reasonable Rationing: International Experience of Priority Setting in Health Care. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, pp 115–140.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. (1996) Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (1997) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Calabresi, G. and Bobbit, P. (1978) Tragic Choices. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  7. Daniels, N. (1985) Just Health Care. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daniels, N. (2008) Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Daniels, N. and Sabin, J.E. (1997) Limits to health care: Fair procedures, democratic deliberation, and the legitimacy problem for insurees. Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (4): 303–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniels, N. and Sabin, J.E. (2002) Setting Limits Fairly: Can We Learn to Share Medical Resources? Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dworkin, R. (ed.) (2000) Justice and the high cost of health. In: Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp 307–319.Google Scholar
  13. Elster, J. (ed.) (1995) Introduction: The idea of local justice. In: Local Justice in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp 1–24.Google Scholar
  14. Fleck, L.M. (2009) Just Caring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gastil, J. and Levine, P. (eds.) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Gutmann, A. (1981) For and against equal access to health care. Milbank Memorial Quarterly: Health and Society 59 (4): 542–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gutmann, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Holm, S. (2000) Developments in the Nordic countries – Goodbye to the simple solutions. In: A. Coulter and C. Ham. (eds.) The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, pp 29–37.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, L., Marmor, T. and Oberlander, J. (1999) The Oregon Health Plan and the political paradox of rationing: What advocates and critics have claimed and what oregon did. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 24 (1): 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lafont, C. (2003) Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls-Habermas debate for discourse ethics. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (2): 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Landwehr, C. (2010) Discourse and coordination: Modes of interaction and their roles in political decision-making. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landwehr, C. and Böhm, K. (2011) Delegation and institutional design in health care rationing. Governance 24 (4): 665–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levine, C. (2009) The seattle ‘god committee’. A cautionary tale. Health Affairs Blog, accessed 13 September 2011.Google Scholar
  25. Manning, J. (2005) Prioritization: Rationing health care in New Zealand. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 33 (4): 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKie, J. and Richardson, J. (2003) The rule of rescue. Social Science and Medicine 56 (12): 2407–2419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, D. (1999) Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Norheim, O.F. (2003) Norway. In: C. Ham and G.B. Robert (eds.) Reasonable Rationing. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press, pp 94–114.Google Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, M. (2006) Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rawls, J. (1995) Reply to Habermas. Journal of Philosophy 92 (3): 132–180.Google Scholar
  31. Rawls, J. (1999 [1971]) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  32. Rid, A. (2009) Justice and procedure: How does‚ ‘accountability for reasonableness’ result in fair limit-setting decisions? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (1): 12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scharpf, F.W. (1989) Decision rules, decision styles and policy choices. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1 (2): 149–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson, D.F. (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walzer, M. (1984) Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudia Landwehr
    • 1
  1. 1.Johannes Gutenberg UniversitätMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations