If You're a Rawlsian, How Come You're So Close to Utilitarianism and Intuitionism? A Critique of Daniels's Accountability for Reasonableness
Health Care Analysis
MetadataShow full item record
Badano, G. (2017). If You're a Rawlsian, How Come You're So Close to Utilitarianism and Intuitionism? A Critique of Daniels's Accountability for Reasonableness. Health Care Analysis https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-017-0343-9
Norman Daniels's theory of 'accountability for reasonableness' is an influential conception of fairness in healthcare resource allocation. Although it is widely thought that this theory provides a consistent extension of John Rawls's general conception of justice, this paper shows that accountability for reasonableness has important points of contact with both utilitarianism and intuitionism, the main targets of Rawls's argument. My aim is to demonstrate that its overlap with utilitarianism and intuitionism leaves accountability for reasonableness open to damaging critiques. The important role that utilitarian-like cost-effectiveness calculations are allowed to play in resource allocation processes disregards the separateness of persons and is seriously unfair towards individuals whose interests are sacrificed for the sake of groups. Furthermore, the function played by intuitions in settling frequent value conflicts opens the door for sheer custom and vested interests to steer decision-making.
healthcare resource allocation, accountability for reasonableness, public justification, Norman Daniels, John Rawls
I am grateful to the Independent Social Research Foundation for its financial support.
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-017-0343-9
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/264623