Principles for Just Prioritization of Expensive Biological Therapies in the Danish Healthcare System

Author:

Bladt Tara,Vorup-Jensen ThomasORCID,Ebbesen MetteORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe Danish healthcare system must meet the need for easy and equal access to healthcare for every citizen. However, investigations have shown unfair prioritization of cancer patients and unfair prioritization of resources for expensive medicines over care. What is needed are principles for proper prioritization. This article investigates whether American ethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress’s principle of justice may be helpful as a conceptual framework for reflections on prioritization of expensive biological therapies in the Danish healthcare system. We present an empirical study exploring the principles for prioritizing new expensive biological therapies. This study includes qualitative interviews with key Danish stakeholders experienced in antibody therapy and prioritizing resources for expensive medicines. Beauchamp and Childress’s model only covers government-funded primary and acute healthcare. Based on the interviews, this study indicates that to be helpful in a Danish context this model should include equal access for citizens to government-funded primary and acute healthcare, costly medicine, and other scarce treatments. We conclude that slightly modified, Beauchamp and Childress’s principle of justice might be useful as a conceptual framework for reflections on the prioritization of expensive biological therapies in the Danish healthcare system.

Funder

Aalborg University Library

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Policy,Health (social science)

Reference42 articles.

1. Albertsen, A. 2022. Rare diseases in healthcare priority setting: Should rarity matter? Journal of Medical Ethics 48(9): 624–628.

2. Beauchamp, T. 2019. A defence of universal principles in biomedical ethics. In Biolaw and policy in the twenty-first century, edited by E. Valdés and J. Lecaros, 3–17. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine. Vol. 78. Cambridge: Springer.

3. Beauchamp, T. and J. Childress. 2019. Principles of biomedical ethics. 8th edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Bladt, T., T. Vorup-Jensen, E. Sædder, and M. Ebbesen. 2020. Empirical investigation of ethical challenges related to the use of biological therapies. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48(3): 567–578.

5. Danish Council on Ethics (DCE). 2018. (Det Etiske Råd). Just prioritization in the Danish healthcare system. (Retfærdig prioritering i det danske sundhedsvæsen). Copenhagen. https://nationaltcenterforetik.dk/Media/637997316169817241/Udtalelse%20retfaerdig%20prioritering.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2023.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Ethics, Politics, and Minorities;Journal of Bioethical Inquiry;2023-09

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3