Scientific second-order ’nudging’ or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes

Thomas Ploug*, Søren Holm, John Brodersen

*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftArtikelForskningpeer review

    Abstract

    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.

    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    Sider (fra-til)641-650
    Antal sider10
    TidsskriftMedicine, Health Care and Philosophy
    Vol/bind17
    Udgave nummer4
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2 okt. 2014

    Fingeraftryk

    Udforsk hvilke forskningsemner 'Scientific second-order ’nudging’ or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes' indeholder.

    Citationsformater