Preparing popular views for inclusion in a reflective equilibrium
A case study on illness severity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4599397 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Borgar Jølstad (0000-0003-3138-3385, Akershus University Hospital, corresponding author), Mille Sofie Stenmarck (0000-0002-2576-0247, Akershus University Hospital), Mathias Barra (0000-0002-0022-4042, Akershus University Hospital) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 348 |
| Pages | 116794 |
| Publication date | 2024-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Science & Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116794 |
| PMID | 38555745 |
| OpenAlex | W4393073827 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 30 |
Principles for priority setting in health care are typically forged by experts influenced by the normative literature on priority setting. Meanwhile, their implementation is subject to democratic deliberation, political pressures, and administrative bureaucracy. Sometimes expert proposals are democratically rejected. This points towards a problem: on the one hand, the fact that a majority shares a moral belief does not inherently validate this belief. On the other hand, when justifying a position to others, we cannot expect much success without engaging with their moral judgments. In this work we examine the possibility of including so-called popular views in a reflective equilibrium process. In reflective equilibrium processes, we are usually interested in considered judgments rather than mere intuitions. Popular views, arguably, often do not meet this standard. To mitigate this, we propose to bolster popular views by linking them with theoretical frameworks echoing similar moral perspectives. We use illness severity as a case study and show that a set of popular accounts can provide considered judgments that merit inclusion in a publicly informed reflective equilibrium process. This is plausibly a way forward in the search for priority setting principles that are both normatively sound and acceptable to the public. Our method provides a general framework for refining available data on popular views on moral questions, including when we cannot assess the consideredness of such views
Bureaucracy · Deliberation · Economics · Epistemology · Inclusion (mineral · Normative · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Reflective equilibrium · Set (abstract data type · Sociology · Computer Science · Ethics in medical practice · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology
Qalys
Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics
Well‐being and Time
Public Opinion and Political Philosophy
Utilitarianism and Beyond
A Theory of Justice
The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being
Justification of principles for healthcare priority setting
A consequentialist argument for considering age in triage decisions during the coronavirus pandemic
Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice (CREP) and controversial novel technologies
When Should Popular Views be Included in a Reflective Equilibrium
Reflective Equilibrium
Is Reflective Equilibrium Enough
Subjectivism without Idealization and Adaptive Preferences
Age and Illness Severity
Conceptual re-engineering
Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics
Desire Satisfactionism and Hedonism
Adaptive Preferences Are a Red Herring
A severely fragmented concept
Charting public views on the meaning of illness severity
Recent work on reflective equilibrium and method in ethics
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |