In recent decades there has been growing emphasis on the views and values of members of the public in health care priority setting. Incorporating the ‘views of the public’ in decision making is challenging however; there are many different ‘publics’, and there are many matters about which publics will disagree, even in relatively homogeneous expert groups.
Drawing on a body of empirical research this presentation will illustrate plurality in societal values in relation to priority setting and provision of expensive, life-extending medicines at the end of life, and discuss implications. Assuming that ‘the public’ will present a number of competing perspectives – both in terms of allegiances with different high-level principles and with respect to specific choices – how should researchers and policy makers respond? In this paper we explore the potential of a mixed methods approach based on a framework of Incompletely Theorised Agreements as a means of addressing plurality and setting priorities.
We raise questions for future interdisciplinary research in relation to plurality in societal values and the emphasis that research might place on consistency, coherence and consensus.
Webinar link: https://zoom.us/j/99795991542
Information about the speaker, Rachel Baker, bio
Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health
Glasgow Caledonian University
For information please contact email@example.com