Process is the point: justice and human rights: priority setting and fair deliberative process
Open accessAbstract
Most people responsible for setting priorities in health have considerable expertise relevant to deciding how to use resources effectively and the kinds of improvements that should be emphasized. Most are also concerned with distributing improvements equitably. Accordingly, they often invoke human rights or principles of distributive justice to legitimize choices that create winners and losers. We propose an approach that draws on the strengths of both perspectives as a way to add legitimacy to efforts to set priorities in health. Our proposal provides a process for setting priorities but is not a formula or an algorithm for generating particular priorities. We propose an approach that would do away with the process through which priorities are set and decisions made, and suggest the value of a focus on the process of legitimizing these decisions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The development process of ESMO-MCBS has been compliant with the criteria for 'accountability for reasonableness', which represent the ethical gold-standard for fair priority setting in public policy.
“The development process has been compliant with the criteria for 'accountability for reasonableness' which represent the ethical gold-standard for a fair priority setting process in public policy [134,135].”
Cites
Justice, Health, and Healthcare
Daniels, N. (2001) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1162/152651601300168834 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Self-citationQALY maximisation and people's preferences: a methodological review of the literature
Dolan, P., Shaw, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Williams, A. (2004) · Health Economics · doi:10.1002/hec.924 · Cited by 431 · see citing works
History, principles, and practice of health and human rights
Gruskin, S., Mills, E. J., & Tarantola, D. J. M. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61200-8 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Self-citationRisk Information Provided to Prospective Oocyte Donors in a Preliminary Phone Call
Gurmankin, A. D. (2001) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1162/152651601317139207 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Priority-setting and hospital strategic planning: a qualitative case study
Martin, D. K., Shulman, K., Santiago-Sorrell, P., & SINGER, P. A. (2003) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/135581903322403254 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Pharmacopolitics and deliberative democracy
Rawlins, M. D. (2005) · Clinical Medicine · doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.5-5-471 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESMO-magnitude of clinical benefit scale version 1.1
Cherny, N. I., Dafni, U., Bogaerts, J., Latino, N. J., Pentheroudakis, G., Douillard, J.-Y., Tabernero, J., Zielinski, C., Piccart, M. J., & de Vries, E. G. E. (2017) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx310 · Cited by 641 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gruskin, S., & Daniels, N.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- Gruskin, Sofia
- Venue
- American Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- American Public Health Association
- Published
- 2008-09
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1573-1577
- ISSN
- 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
- 1541-0048
- PMC
- PMC2509612
- OpenAlex
- W2041621541
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 11.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- health priority setting, decision-making legitimacy, distributive justice, human rights, health equity, resource allocation, public health policy
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Organizational, Female, Government Programs, Health Priorities, Humans, Human Rights, Maternal Health Services, Politics, Public Health, Social Justice, Social Responsibility, United States, Program Development, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
