Hausman Daniel M
Center for Population-Level Bioethics, Rutgers University, USA.
Soc Sci Med. 2023 Mar;320:115711. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115711. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
This essay explores the pitfalls and ambiguities in relying on preference elicitation to value health states, and it distinguishes preference elicitation, as a fallible method of measuring well-being, from public consultation, as an element of public deliberation. After distinguishing preference elicitation as a method of ascertaining opinions from preference elicitation as a method of measuring well-being, it points out that preferences depend on beliefs and the considerations speaking in favor of deferring to people's values do not carry over to deferring to their beliefs. Instead of valuing health states by their bearing on well-being, as measured by preferences, this essay argues for valuing health states by their bearing on activity limitations and suffering, as determined by public deliberation.
本文探讨了依靠偏好诱导来评估健康状况时存在的缺陷和模糊性，并将偏好诱导（一种衡量幸福感的易错方法）与公众咨询（作为公共审议的一个要素）区分开来。在将作为确定意见方法的偏好诱导与作为衡量幸福感方法的偏好诱导区分开来之后，本文指出，偏好取决于信念，支持尊重人们价值观的考量并不适用于尊重他们的信念。本文主张，不应像通过偏好衡量的那样，根据健康状况对幸福感的影响来评估健康状况，而应根据公共审议确定的健康状况对活动受限和痛苦的影响来评估。
