Open AccessEthical health resources allocation: Why the distinction between ‘rationing’ and ‘rationalization’ matters
Author(s) -
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
revista de bioética y derecho
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.113
H-Index - 1
ISSN - 1886-5887
DOI - 10.1344/rbd2020.50.32044
Subject(s) - rationing , rationalization (economics) , scarcity , health care rationing , transparency (behavior) , resource allocation , business , economics , law and economics , public economics , health care , political science , law , microeconomics , economic growth , management
Allocation of health resources has an irreducible ethical dimension, thus cannot be decided only technically, but must be ethically weighed, what paradigmatic experiences of macro (Oregon Basic Health Services Act, 1989) and micro allocation (God’s Committee, 1962) have shown. Justice is required in the enunciation of prioritization criteria, and transparency in its application. In situations of aggravated resource scarcity, it is common to take ‘allocate’ and ‘rationing’ as synonyms or claim that ‘allocate’ is always ‘rationing’. Rejecting these positions, there is a distinction between 'allocating' (resource management) from 'rationing' (allocation of limited resources to a limited number of persons) and 'rationalizing' (optimization of available resources). These distinctions are ethically pertinent, showing how only 'rationalization' respects justice, transparency and human dignity.