Do Moral Views Change during a Crisis? An Experiment on Health Care Priority Setting

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Public Health Policy
• Behavioral Economics

Background:

• Resource scarcity in crises like pandemics highlights efficiency in medical decision-making.
• Uncertainty exists whether crisis impact stems from scarcity experience or principle formulation.

Purpose of the Study:

• Investigate crisis impact on public support for healthcare priority-setting principles.
• Determine if abstract vs. concrete principle formulations influence support.

Main Methods:

• Online experiment with 1,404 participants.
• Examined attitudes toward human dignity, needs-solidarity, and cost-effectiveness principles.
• Manipulated abstract vs. concrete principle presentations in crisis and non-crisis contexts.

Main Results:

• Crisis context had small effects; principle ranking remained stable.
• Abstractness level had a stronger impact than crisis context.
• Support for needs-solidarity increased abstractly; cost-effectiveness increased concretely.

Conclusions:

• Public moral views on healthcare priority setting are relatively stable during crises.
• Principle formulation (abstract/concrete) is a stronger driver of support shifts than the crisis context itself.