1 Forskningsenheden for Almen Praksis, Eksterne centre, Københavns Universitet2 Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet3 Centre for Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Science4 Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK5 Forskningsenheden for Almen Praksis, Eksterne centre, Københavns Universitet
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