IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v14y2015i1p3-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficiency, responsibility and disability

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen John

Abstract

Pre-natal-diagnosis technologies allow parents to discover whether their child is likely to suffer from serious disability. One argument for state funding of access to such technologies is that doing so would be “cost-effective†, in the sense that the expected financial costs of such a programme would be outweighed by expected “benefits†, stemming from the births of fewer children with serious disabilities. This argument is extremely controversial. This paper argues that the argument may not be as unacceptable as is often assumed. In doing so, it sets out a more general framework for assessing the relevance of efficiency calculations to policy-making. The final section also investigates the relationship between the paper’s arguments and claims about parental responsibility for child-bearing and rearing, with reference to Scanlon’s work on “substantive responsibility†.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen John, 2015. "Efficiency, responsibility and disability," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:14:y:2015:i:1:p:3-22
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X13505412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X13505412
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X13505412?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunstein,Cass R., 2002. "Risk and Reason," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521791991, January.
    2. Hubin, Donald C., 1994. "The Moral Justification of Benefit/Cost Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 169-194, October.
    3. Seror, Valerie & Costet, Nathalie, 1998. "Down syndrome serum marker screening: decision criteria and implicit values," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 83-96, January.
    4. Hansson, Sven Ove, 2007. "Philosophical Problems In Cost–Benefit Analysis," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 163-183, July.
    5. Anand, Sudhir, 2004. "Public Health, Ethics, and Equity," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199276363, Decembrie.
    6. Wolff, Jonathan, 2009. "Disability, Status Enhancement, Personal Enhancement And Resource Allocation," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 49-68, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donald Macrae, 2011. "Standards for risk assessment of standards: how the international community is starting to address the risk of the wrong standards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 933-942, September.
    2. Neelke Doorn, 2015. "The Blind Spot in Risk Ethics: Managing Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 354-360, March.
    3. Tian Sang & Peng Liu & Liang Zhao, 2022. "Judicial Response to Ecological Environment Risk in China—From the Perspective of Social Systems Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Johan Fritzell & Olli Kangas & Jennie Bacchus-hertzman & Blomgren, J. (Jenni), 2012. "GINI DP 64: Cross-Temporal and Cross-National Poverty and Mortality Rates among Developed Countries," GINI Discussion Papers 64, AIAS, Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Labour Studies.
    6. Jolanta Bijańska & Krzysztof Wodarski & Aneta Aleksander, 2022. "Analysis of the Financing Options for Pro-Ecological Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-30, March.
    7. Damian Tago & Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Pesticides and Health: A Review of Evidence on Health Effects, Valuation of Risks, and Benefit-Cost Analysis," Advances in Health Economics and Health Services Research, in: Preference Measurement in Health, volume 24, pages 203-295, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    8. repec:ces:ifodic:v:12:y:2014:i:2:p:19116213 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Alexandra P. Bocharova, 2020. "Network Analysis Of The Chinese Media On The Evidence From The Hong Kong Protest Movement," HSE Working papers WP BRP 76/PS/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Paul Dolan & Daniel Kahneman, 2008. "Interpretations Of Utility And Their Implications For The Valuation Of Health," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 215-234, January.
    11. Helen LaVan & Lori S. Cook & Ivana Zilic, 2021. "An analysis of the ethical frameworks and financial outcomes of corporate social responsibility and business press reporting of US pharmaceutical companies," International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(3), pages 326-355.
    12. Rosemary Lowry & Martin Peterson, 2012. "Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(3), pages 258-279, August.
    13. Andrea Klonschinski, 2021. "Universal Metrics for Climate Change Adaptation Finance? A Cautionary Tale," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Gordon Anderson & Oliver Linton & Maria Grazia Pittau & Yoon-Jae Whang & Roberto Zelli, 2021. "On unit free assessment of the extent of multilateral distributional variation," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(3), pages 502-518.
    15. Kristian Kallenberg, 2009. "Corporate risk management of chemicals: a stakeholder approach to the brominated flame retardants," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 75-89, January.
    16. Dirk Haubrich, 2006. "Modern Politics in an Age of Global Terrorism: New Challenges for Domestic Public Policy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 399-423, June.
    17. R. Quentin Grafton & Mahala McLindin & Karen Hussey & Paul Wyrwoll & Dennis Wichelns & Claudia Ringler & Dustin Garrick & Jamie Pittock & Sarah Wheeler & Stuart Orr & Nathanial Matthews & Erik Ansink , 2016. "Responding to Global Challenges in Food, Energy, Environment and Water: Risks and Options Assessment for Decision-Making," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 275-299, May.
    18. Adam M. Finkel & George Gray, 2018. "Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 230-238, June.
    19. Ohid Yaqub, 2018. "Variation in the dynamics and performance of industrial innovation: what can we learn from vaccines and HIV vaccines?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 173-187.
    20. Cass Sunstein & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 435-449, March.
    21. Courard-Hauri, David, 2004. "The effect of income choice on bias in policy decisions made using cost-benefit analyses," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3-4), pages 191-199, December.

    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:pophec:v:14:y:2015:i:1:p:3-22. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.