Procedural justice and the individual participant in priority setting: Doctors' experiences

In this study we describe, synthesise, and discuss the experiences and views of doctors who participate as technical experts in health care priority setting, reflect on the ethical significance of the challenges to procedural and distributive justice they encounter, and propose an empirically derived practical approach to improving the fairness of the process. Between August 2015 and July 2016 we conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 20 doctors in NSW, Australia, purposively selected on the basis of their participation in macroallocation. Participant selection, data collection, and analysis were carried out according to the principles of grounded moral analysis, an empirical bioethics methodology closely based on grounded theory. The doctors we interviewed attached ethical significance to a broad range of procedural concerns that militated both against the prospect of distributive justice and against their own wellbeing: unfair access to opportunities to participate in macroallocation, sexist behaviours and structures, rewards for rule-breakers, cynical and insincere practices, waste, duplication, and inefficiency, and being taken for granted. On the basis of our data, we hypothesise that the institutional conditions for macroallocation do not support the care of medical participants in deliberations. Evaluating our findings against the 'accountability for reasonableness' framework of Daniels and Sabin, we expose as incompatible with the conditions for procedural justice processes that treat participants in macroallocation unfairly or cause them to have moral unease about the justice of the enterprise. We suggest a supplementary procedure that positions commitment to the care and just treatment of participants as a foundation of any macroallocation procedure.