Rationing decisions and individual responsibility for illness: Are all lives equal?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 194-211

  Wittenberg, Eve ^a   Goldie, Sue J ^b   Fischhoff, Baruch ^c   Graham, John D ^b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Personal responsibility; Preferences; Rationing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AIR POLLUTION; ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION; ASTHMA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NORMAL HUMAN; PROGNOSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AGED; AIR POLLUTION, INDOOR; ASTHMA; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE RATIONING; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; LIVER DISEASES; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037799607     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03023003002     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Golenski JD, Blum SR. The Oregon Medicaid Priority-Setting Project. Portland (OR): Bioethics Consultation Group for the Medicaid Research Foundation of Oregon; 1989.
2. LORAN Commission. Report of the LORAN Commission to the Harvard Community Health Plan. New York: LORAN Commission; 1988.
3. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science. 1969;165:1232-8.
4. Graham JD. Some explanations for disparities in lifesaving investments. Policy Studies Rev. 1982;1:692-704.
5. Jones-Lee M. The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk. New York: Basil Blackwell; 1989.
6. Slovic P. The risk game. Reliability Eng Syst Safety. 1998;59:73-9.
7. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127-52.
8. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA Jr., editors. Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? New York: Plenum Press; 1980. p. 181-216.
9. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. Characterizing perceived risk. In: Kates RW, Hohenemser C, Kasperson JX, editors. Progress: Technology as Hazard. Boulder (CO): Westview; 1985. p. 91-125.
10. Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S. The psychometric study of risk perception. In: Covello V, Menkes J, Mumpower J, editors. Risk Evaluation and Management: The State of the Art. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. p. 3-24.
11. Jones-Lee M, Loomes G. Towards a willingness-to-pay based value of underground safety. J Transport Econ Policy. 1994;28:83-98.
12. Subramanian U, Cropper ML. Public choices between lifesaving programs. The tradeoff between qualitative factors and lives saved. J Risk Uncertainty. 2000;1(1):117-49.
13. Ubel PA, Jepson C, Baron J, Mohr T, McMorrow S, Asch DA. Allocation of transplantable organs: do people want to punish patients for causing their illness? Liver Transplantation. 2001;7(7):600-7.
14. Neuberger J, Adams D, MacMaster P, Maidment A, Speed M. Assessing priorities for allocation of donor liver grafts: survey of public and clinicians. BMJ. 1998;317:172-5.
15. Ratcliffe J. Public preferences for the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Health Econ. 2000;9:137-48.
16. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46, Protection of Human Subjects, §46.101, part (b)(2), revised 18 June 1991, effective 19 August 1991. Available from: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/ 45cfr46.php3#46.101
17. US Department of Justice. Americans with Disabilities Act. Available from: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm
18. Jenni KE. Attributes for risk evaluation. Ph.D. dissertation. Pittsburgh (PA): Carnegie Mellon University; 1997.
19. Fischhoff B, Welch N, Frederick S. Construal processes in preference assessment. J Risk Uncertainty. 1999;19:139-64.
20. Baron J. Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions. Psychol Bull. 1997;122(1):72-88.
21. Gregory R, Lichtenstein S. A hint of risk: tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Anal. 1994;14(2):199-206.
22. Krupnick AJ, Cropper ML. The effect of information on health risk valuations. J Risk Uncertainty. 1992;5:29-48.
23. Savage I. An empirical investigation into the effect of psychological perceptions on the willingness-to-pay to reduce risk. J Risk Uncertainty. 1993;6:75-90.
24. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1101-8.
25. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 1995.
26. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS, version 6.12. Cary (NC): SAS Institute; 1999.
27. Samet JM, Spengler JD. Indoor Air Pollution: A Health Perspective. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press; 1991.
28. Ubel PA, Baron J, Asch DA. Social responsibility, personal rsponsibility, and prognosis in public judgments about transplant allocation. Bioethics. 1999;13(1):57-68.
29. Moss AH, Siegler M. Should alcoholics compete equally for liver transplantation? JAMA. 1991;265(10):1295-8.
30. AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Ethical considerations in the allocation of organs and other scarce medical resources among patients. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:29-40.
31. Amended UNOS Policy 3.6 (Allocation of Livers). Approved by the UNOS Board of Directors on 25 June 1998. Available from: http:// www.unos.org
32. unstein CR. Bad deaths. J Risk Uncertainty. 1997;14:259-82.
33. Ubel PA, Richardson J, Baron J. Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy. 2002;61(2):189-99.
34. Fischhoff B. Value elicitation: is there anything in there? Am Psychol. 1991;46:835-47.
35. Cookson R. Incorporating psycho-social considerations into health valuation: an experimental study. J Health Econ. 2000;19:369-401.