Separate spheres and indirect benefits 英文参考文献.docVIP

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation BioMedCentral Review Open Access Separate spheres and indirect benefits Dan W Brock* Address: Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Maguson Clinical Centre, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1156, USA Email: Dan W Brock* - Dbrock@ * Corresponding author The views in this paper are the authors and do not represent the policies and positions of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service, or the Department of Health and Human Services. Published: 26 February 2003 Received: 24 February 2003 Accepted: 26 February 2003 Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2003, 1:4 This article is available from: /content/1/1/4 ? 2003 Brock; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the articles original URL. Abstract On any plausible account of the basis for health care resource prioritization, the benefits and costs of different alternative resource uses are relevant considerations in the prioritization process. Consequentialists hold that the maximization of benefits with available resources is the only relevant consideration. Non-consequentialists do not reject the relevance of consequences of benefits and costs, but insist that other considerations, and in particular the distribution of benefits and costs, are morally important as well. Whatever ones particular account of morally justified standards for the prioritization of different health interventions, we must be able to measure those interventions benefits and costs. There are many theoretical and practical difficulties in that measurement, such as how to weigh extending life against improving health and quality of life as well as how different quality of life improvements should be valued, but they are not my co