This is a POLEMO member section seminar for CEU BA, MA, and PhD students to present and receive feedback on their work. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss your research with us at email@example.com
Abstract | In practice and the philosophical literature on health priorities, the standard view is to ignore the third-party and non-medical effects when allocating scarce healthcare resources. In this paper, we argue against this exclusionary view and propose an inclusive view instead. We argue that, in principle, every foreseeable effect of a decision should matter when prioritising healthcare resources. Thus, we propose widening the scope of attention from patients qua patients to everyone affected by the allocation of healthcare resources. We defend the inclusive view against objections that it is discriminatory and unfair. Whilst doing so, we shed light on some objections to contractualism, suggesting aggregative theories to be better suited to aid decisions within this sphere.
Bio | Albert Didriksen is a Probationary Doctoral Candidate in political theory at Central European University. His educational background includes studies in political science and philosophy, the former of which he holds a Master's degree in from the University of Oslo. Between his master's and PhD studies, Albert worked as a lecturer at the University of Oslo, where he taught research design, qualitative and quantitative methods and political philosophy to undergraduate students. He has also worked as a research assistant at Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, among other things, connected to a project about transatlantic relations from the EU’s perspective. Albert’s research interests lie in theories of justice, moral epistemology and marginal decision-making under uncertainty. He will combine these during his PhD research, defending utilitarianism as a political theory against common objections.
Meeting ID: 942 5206 2740