Scholarlink

<p>Since standard measures of health effect ascribe negative value to disabilities, it is commonly believed that a cost-effective scheme for allocation of healthcare resources discriminates against people with disabilities. It is still a question for discussion, however, when and why such discrimination is justified. In this paper I account for the central normative substance of this disability discrimination problem, and I defend the claim that it is more justifiable to discriminate against disabled people based on lifespan considerations than on assessments of their reduced quality of life. I term this <i>the asymmetry intuition</i>. Based on some prior attempts to explain the asymmetry intuition, I offer <i>the Reasonable Impartial Interest Argument</i> as the best possible way to defend it. If my argument is sound, this moves us a step further towards a cost-effective priority setting that does not unjustly discriminate against people with disabilities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-Effectiveness and the Distinction Between Quantitative and Qualitative Disability Discrimination

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月22日

查看全文
  • Lasse Nielsen

摘要

Since standard measures of health effect ascribe negative value to disabilities, it is commonly believed that a cost-effective scheme for allocation of healthcare resources discriminates against people with disabilities. It is still a question for discussion, however, when and why such discrimination is justified. In this paper I account for the central normative substance of this disability discrimination problem, and I defend the claim that it is more justifiable to discriminate against disabled people based on lifespan considerations than on assessments of their reduced quality of life. I term this the asymmetry intuition. Based on some prior attempts to explain the asymmetry intuition, I offer the Reasonable Impartial Interest Argument as the best possible way to defend it. If my argument is sound, this moves us a step further towards a cost-effective priority setting that does not unjustly discriminate against people with disabilities.