Mendoza Roger Lee
School of Business, Wilmington University, 31 Reads Way, New Castle, DE, 19720, USA,
Med Health Care Philos. 2015 Aug;18(3):379-91. doi: 10.1007/s11019-014-9619-0.
One of the overriding interests of the literature on health care economics is to discover where personal choice in market economies end and corrective government intervention should begin. Our study addresses this question in the context of John Stuart Mill's utilitarian principle of harm. Our primary objective is to determine whether public policy interventions concerning more than 35,000 online pharmacies worldwide are necessary and efficient compared to traditional market-oriented approaches. Secondly, we seek to determine whether government interference could enhance personal utility maximization, despite its direct and indirect (unintended) costs on medical e-commerce. This study finds that containing the negative externalities of medical e-commerce provides the most compelling raison d'etre of government interference. It asserts that autonomy and paternalism need not be mutually exclusive, despite their direct and indirect consequences on individual choice and decision-making processes. Valuable insights derived from Mill's principle should enrich theory-building in health care economics and policy.
医疗保健经济学文献的一个首要关注点是弄清楚市场经济中的个人选择在何处结束，以及政府的纠正性干预应从何处开始。我们的研究在约翰·斯图尔特·密尔的功利主义伤害原则背景下探讨了这个问题。我们的主要目标是确定与传统的市场导向方法相比，针对全球35000多家在线药店的公共政策干预是否必要且有效。其次，我们试图确定政府干预是否能提高个人效用最大化，尽管这会给医疗电子商务带来直接和间接（意外）成本。本研究发现，抑制医疗电子商务的负面外部性为政府干预提供了最有说服力的理由。它主张，尽管自主性和家长式作风对个人选择和决策过程有直接和间接影响，但二者不一定相互排斥。从密尔原则中获得的宝贵见解应丰富医疗保健经济学和政策的理论构建。
