Borck Cornelius
Institut für Medizingeschichte und Wissenschaftsforschung, Universität zu Lübeck.
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(6):383-5. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2012.06.001. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
The debate on prioritisation aims to generate broad consensus on the social distribution of health care goods. There is nothing wrong with this aim but the political debate around it should include a discussion whether prioritisation is the strategy needed to realize this goal. Obviously, prioritisation follows the currently prevalent logic of evaluation as a universal legitimating strategy but, due to its multiple and unforeseeable effects, this does not necessarily imply that prioritisation will deliver on its promises. Hence, the debate cannot be focused on the appropriate strategies of prioritisation as its proponents seem to intend, but must also include the social costs and potentially adversary effects of this strategy of rationalisation. (As supplied by publisher).
关于医疗资源优先分配的辩论旨在就医疗保健产品的社会分配达成广泛共识。这个目标本身并无不妥,但围绕它展开的政治辩论应包括讨论优先分配是否是实现这一目标所需的策略。显然,优先分配遵循了当前普遍流行的评估逻辑,将其作为一种普遍的合法化策略,但由于其具有多重且不可预见的影响,这并不一定意味着优先分配就能兑现其承诺。因此,这场辩论不能像其支持者所期望的那样,仅仅聚焦于优先分配的适当策略,还必须考虑这种合理化策略的社会成本以及潜在的不利影响。(由出版商提供)