Related Experiment Videos
Rationing decisions and individual responsibility for illness: are all lives equal?
Eve Wittenberg1, Sue J Goldie, Baruch Fischhoff
1MGH Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114, USA. ewittenberg@mgh-ita.org
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.