Abstract

Accountable decision-makers are required to legitimize their priority setting decisions in health to members of society. In this perspective we stress the point that fair, legitimate processes should reflect efforts of authorities to treat all stakeholders as moral equals in terms of providing all people with well-justified, reasonable reasons to endorse the decisions. We argue there is a special moral concern for being accountable to those who are potentially adversely affected by decisions. Health authorities need to operationalize this requirement into real world action. In this perspective, we operationalize five key steps in doing so, in terms of (i) proactively identifying potentially adversely affected stakeholders; (ii) comprehensively including them in the decision-making process; (iii) ensuring meaningful participation; (iv) communication of recommendations or decisions; and (v) the organization of evaluation and appeal mechanisms. Health authorities are advised to use a checklist in the form of 29 reflective questions, aligned with these five key steps, to assist them in the practical organization of legitimate priority setting in healthcare.

Highlights

  • Health authorities make priority setting decisions on behalf of society

  • Whatever the health authorities’ specific reason for organizing stakeholder participation, fair, legitimate processes have to reflect efforts of authorities to treat all stakeholders as moral equals and provide people with well-justified, reasonable reasons to endorse the process and the decision – even if it is the case that they would have preferred another outcome.[5,6]

  • We developed a checklist by operationalizing the A4R framework and reflecting on the ethical notions it invokes, supported by broader literature on stakeholder participation and public deliberation, paying special concern for the ethical demand to be accountable to adversely affected stakeholders.[2,3,4,5,20,22,23,24,25,26,27]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Health authorities make priority setting decisions on behalf of society. Their decisions are bound to be controversial as stakeholders likely disagree over which priorities should be set and over who should benefit and who should not. Introduction Health authorities make priority setting decisions on behalf of society. Health authorities lack easy-to-use tools that can support them in carefully organizing meaningful stakeholder participation.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call