IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v23y2003i3p194-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rationing Decisions and Individual Responsibility for Illness: Are all Lives Equal?

Author

Listed:
  • Eve Wittenberg
  • Sue J. Goldie
  • Baruch Fischhoff
  • John D. Graham

Abstract

Objectives . This survey measured individuals' rationing allocation choices for situations in which patients are deemed to hold personal responsibility for their diseases and the influence of different arguments on such choices. Methods . The association between allocation decisions for liver disease and asthma and the belief that a patient was responsible for his or her illness was modeled using multivariable regression analysis, controlling for the effect of arguments on choices. Results . In data from 310 returned surveys (43% response rate), respondents were 10 to 17 times more likely to allocate liver transplants or asthma treatment to patients they deemed not responsible for their illnesses than to patients they deemed responsible for their conditions (liver transplants: odds ratio [OR] = 10.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5-42.1; asthma: OR = 16.8, 95% CI = 2.1-136.6). Conclusions . Personal responsibility for illness was an important consideration in respondents' rationing allocation decisions. These choices appeared to be stable although possibly influenced by respondents' interpretations of the survey scenarios and decision tasks.

Suggested Citation

  • Eve Wittenberg & Sue J. Goldie & Baruch Fischhoff & John D. Graham, 2003. "Rationing Decisions and Individual Responsibility for Illness: Are all Lives Equal?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 23(3), pages 194-211, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:3:p:194-211
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X03023003002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X03023003002
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X03023003002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:23:y:2003:i:3:p:194-211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.