1 Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science, Department of Communication and Psychology, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University2 The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University3 Department of Communication and Psychology, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University4 Forskningscenter for etik i praksis, Department of Learning and Philosophy, The Faculty of Humanities, Aalborg University5 Department of Health Science and Technology, The Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University6 The Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University7 Afdeling for Almen Medicin
the battle over abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes
The idea that it is acceptable to 'nudge' people to opt for the 'healthy choice' is gaining currency in health care policy circles. This article investigates whether researchers evaluating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes (AAASP) attempt to influence decision makers in ways that are similar to popular 'nudging' techniques. Comparing two papers on the health economics of AAASP both published in the BMJ within the last 3 years, it is shown that the values chosen for the health economics modelling are not representative of the literature and consistently favour the conclusions of the articles. It is argued (1) that this and other features of these articles may be justified within a Libertarian Paternalist framework as 'nudging' like ways of influencing decision makers, but also (2) that these ways of influencing decision makers raise significant ethical issues in the context of democratic decision making.
Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 2014, Vol 17, Issue 4, p. 641-650