Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public

Social Science and Medicine

Volumn 42, Issue 7, 1996, Pages 1049-1055

  Ubel, Peter A ^a,b   Loewenstein, George ^b  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Equity; Ethics; Health policy; Prognosis; Transplantation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL ETHICS; PATIENT SELECTION; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EID: 0029872709     PISSN: 02779536     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00216-2     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Gray B. H. The legislative battle over health services research. Health Affairs 11, 38, 1992.
2. Cantor S. B. Cost-effectiveness analysis, extended dominance, and ethics. Med. Decision Making 14, 259, 1994.
3. Eddy D. M. Cost-effectiveness analysis: a conversation with my father. J. Am. Med. Ass. 267, 1669, 1992.
4. Caplan A. L. Hard data on efficacy: the prerequisite to hard choices in health care. Mount Sinai J. Med. 56, 185, 1989.
5. Evans R. W., Manninen D. L., Dong F. B. and McLynne D. A. Is retransplantation cost effective? Transplantation Proc. 25, 1694, 1993.
6. Stevenson L. W., Warner S. L., Hamilton M. A., Kobashigawa J. A., Moriguchi J. D., Drinkwater D. C. and Laks H. Distribution of donor hearts to maximize transplant candidate survival. Circulation 84(4), S.II, 352, 1991.
7. Ubel P. A., Arnold R. M. and Caplan A. L. Rationing failure: the ethical lessons of the retransplantation of scarce, vital organs. J. Am. Med. Ass. 270, 2469, 1993.
8. Wikler D. Equity, efficacy, and the point system for transplant recipient selection. Transplantation Proc. 21, 3437, 1989.
9. Brock D. W. Ethical issues in recipient selection for organ transplantation. In Organ Substitution Technology: Ethical, Legal, and Public Policy Issues (Edited by Mathieu D.). Westview Press, Boulder, 1988.
10. Starzl T. E., Shapiro R. and Teperman L. The point system for organ distribution. Transplantation Proc. 21, 3432, 1989.
11. UNOS. Articles of Incorporation. 27 June 1995.
12. Hadorn D. C. Setting health care priorities in Oregon: cost-effectiveness meets the rule of rescue. J. Am. Med. Ass. 265, 2218, 1991.
13. Morell V. Oregon puts bold health plan on ice. Science 249, 468, 1990.
14. Nord E. The trade-off between severity of illness and treatment effect in cost-value analysis of health care. Hlth Pol. 24, 227, 1993.
15. Nord E. The relevance of health state after treatment in prioritising between different patients. J. med. Ethics 19, 37, 1993.
16. Nord E., Richardson J. and Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evaluation of health states: evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int. J. Technol. Assess. 9, 463, 1993.
17. Nord E. Unjustified use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in priority setting in Oregon. Hlth Pol. 24, 45, 1993.
18. Ubel P. A., Scanlon D., Loewenstein G. and Kamlet M. Individual utilities are inconsistent with rationing choices: a partial explanation of why Oregon's cost-effectiveness list failed. Med. Decision Making, in press.
19. Caplan A. L., Siminoff L., Arnold B. and Virnig B. Organ and tissue donation: what are the obstacles, what are our options? In Increasing Organ Donation (Edited by Novello A.). DHHS, Washington D.C., 1992.
20. Ubel P. A. and Loewenstein G. The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: an experimental survey of public attitudes. Hlth Pol., in press.
21. Ubel P. A. and Loewenstein G. Public perceptions of the importance of prognosis in allocating transplantable livers to children. Med. Decision Making, in press.
22. Gal I. and Baron J. Understanding repeated gambles. Cognition and Instruction, in press.
23. Eddy D. M. Applying cost-effectiveness analysis: the inside story. J. Am. Med. Ass. 268, 2575, 1992.
24. Emery D. D. and Schneiderman L. J. Cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. Hastings Center Rep. 19, 8, 1989.
25. Schelling T. C. The life you save may be your own. In Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis (Edited by Chase S. B.). Brookings Institution, Washington DC, 1968.
26. Jonsen A. Bentham in a box: technology assessment and health care allocation. Law Med. Hlth Care 14, 172, 1986.
27. Nord E. The validity of a visual analogue scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Int. J. Hlth Plan. Mgmt 6, 234, 1991.
28. Skitka L. J. and Tetlock P. E. Allocating scarce resources: a contingency model of distributive justice. J. exp. soc. Psychol. 28, 491, 1992.
29. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am. Psychol. 46, 835, 1991.