liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Individual responsibility as ground for priority setting in shared decision-making
Linköping University, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Division of Health Care Analysis. Linköping University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Boras, Sweden.
Linköping University, Department of Culture and Communication, Arts and Humanities. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
2016 (English)In: Journal of Medical Ethics, ISSN 0306-6800, E-ISSN 1473-4257, Vol. 42, no 10, 653-658 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction Given healthcare resource constraints, voices are being raised to hold patients responsible for their health choices. In parallel, there is a growing trend towards shared decision-making, aiming to empower patients and give them more control over healthcare decisions. More power and control over decisions is usually taken to mean more responsibility for them. The trend of shared decision-making would therefore seem to strengthen the case for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting. Objective To analyse whether the implementation of shared decision-making would strengthen the argument for invoking individual responsibility in the healthcare priority setting using normative analysis. Results and conclusions Shared decision-making does not constitute an independent argument in favour of employing individual responsibility since these notions rest on different underlying values. However, if a health system employs shared decision-making, individual responsibility may be used to limit resource implications of accommodating patient preferences outside professional standards and goals. If a healthcare system employs individual responsibility, high level dynamic shared decision-making implying a joint deliberation resulting in a decision where both parties are willing to revise initial standpoints may disarm common objections to the applicability of individual responsibility by virtue of making patients more likely to exercise adequate control of their own actions. However, if communication strategies applied in the shared decision-making are misaligned to the patients initial capacities, arguments against individual responsibility might, on the other hand, gain strength.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP , 2016. Vol. 42, no 10, 653-658 p.
Keyword [en]
Autonomy; Decision-making; Resource Allocation
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-132532DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103285ISI: 000385950500009PubMedID: 27495235OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-132532DiVA: diva2:1046399
Note

Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council; Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare [2014-40]

Available from: 2016-11-14 Created: 2016-11-13 Last updated: 2016-11-14

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Gustavsson, Erik
By organisation
Division of Health Care AnalysisFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesArts and HumanitiesFaculty of Arts and Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 8 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link