Principles of distributive justice used by members of the general public in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation
A qualitative study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19508201 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stephen Wilmot (0000-0001-8382-0554, University of Derby), Julie Ratcliffe (0000-0001-7365-1988, Cancer Research UK Manchester Institute) |
| Year | 2002 |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 199-209 |
| Publication date | 2002-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Expectations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00176.x |
| PMID | 12199659 |
| OpenAlex | W2071187600 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 17 |
Objective To investigate the nature of public preferences in the allocation of donor liver grafts for transplantation. Design A qualitative study based upon the transcripts of four focus groups. Setting Derby, Derbyshire, UK. Participants Twenty‐two members of the public in the Derby locality, recruited to one of four focus groups through local community groups. Main outcome measures The views of focus group members as to the importance (or otherwise) of several potential discriminating factors which could be used in the prioritization of patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation were ascertained. The factors included were expected post‐transplant prognosis, the age of the patient, whether the patient was personally responsible for their illness, the time spent on the waiting list, re‐transplantation or primary transplant and the social background of the patient. Results and conclusions Group members explored the criteria from a number of perspectives, and made some unexpected linkages between the criteria and wider moral principles. They did not come to firm conclusions about the relative desirability of the criteria, but their approach was notably flexible and thoughtful, with the exception of a few instances where they appeared to resort to arguments based on what is ‘obvious’ and ‘natural’. The results of these discussions suggest that members of the public would be able and willing to respond positively to a more open and consultative system of donor liver prioritization than exists presently within the UK
Business · Distributive justice · Donation · Economic Justice · Family medicine · Focus group · Health care · Health care rationing · Liver transplantation · Political science · Prioritization · Public involvement · Public relations · Qualitative research · Sociology · Waiting list · Law · Medicine · Organ Donation and Transplantation · Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes · Psychology · Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments · Social Psychology · Marketing · Surgery · Transplantation
Are public preferences over health distributions guided by principles of distribution? A social choice experiment
The Relevance of Personal Characteristics in Allocating Health Care Resources—Controversial Preferences of Laypersons with Different Educational Backgrounds
Israeli Medical Experts’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Preferences in Allocating Donor Organs for Transplantation
Exploring Donation Decisions
Public preferences for the allocation of donor organs for transplantation
Who's to Blame? How Recipient Deservingness Influences Attitudes About Access to the Organ Transplants
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2010 - 2026 (17) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |