Skip to main content
Log in

Can Medical Criteria Settle Priority-Setting Debates? The Need for Ethical Analysis

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Medical criteria rooted in evidence-based medicine are often seen as a value-neutral ‘trump card’ which puts paid to any further debate about setting priorities for treatment. On this argument, doctors should stop providing treatment at the point when it becomes medically futile, and that is also the threshold at which the health purchaser should stop purchasing. This paper offers three kinds of ethical criteria as a counterweight to analysis based solely on medical criteria. The first set of arguments concerns futility, probability and utility; the second, justice and fairness; the third, consent and competence. The argument is illustrated by two recent case studies about futility and priority-setting: the US example of ‘Baby Ryan’ and the UK case of ‘Child B’.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dickenson, D.L. Can Medical Criteria Settle Priority-Setting Debates? The Need for Ethical Analysis. Health Care Analysis 7, 131–137 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009432903439

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009432903439

Navigation