Concepts of justice, risk, and ethics can be merged with decision analysis by requiring the analyst to specify explicitly a decision rule or sequence of rules. Decision rules are categorized by whether they consider: 1) aspects of outcome distributions beyond central tendencies; 2) probabilities as well as utilities of outcomes; and 3) means as well as ends. This formulation suggests that distribution-based decision rules could address both risk (for an individual) and justice (for the population). Rational choice under risk if choices are one-time only (vs. repeated events) or if one branch contains unlikely but disastrous outcomes might ignore probability information. Incorporating risk attitude into decision rules rather than utilities could facilitate use of multiattribute approaches to measuring outcomes. Certain ethical concerns could be addressed by prior specification of rules for allowing particular branches. Examples, including selection of polio vaccine strategies, are discussed, and theoretical and practical implications of a decision rule approach noted. Key words: decision making; utility theory; decision analysis; ethics; risk; justice. (Med Decis Making 1990;10:181-194)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Keeney RL, Raiffa H.Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1976.
2.
Weinstein MC, Fineberg HVClinical decision analysis. Philadelphia : W. B. Saunders, 1980.
3.
Von Winterfeldt D., Edwards W.Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
4.
Schoemaker Pjh.The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J Econ Lit. 1982 ; 20:529-63.
5.
Clough DJDecisions in public and private sectors: theories, practices and processes . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall , 1984.
6.
Luce RD, Raiffa H.Games and decisions: introduction and critical survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957.
7.
Blatt JMExpected utility theory does not apply to all rational men. In: Stigum BP, Wenstop F, eds. Foundations of utility and risk theory with applications . Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983; 107-16.
8.
Eraker SA, Politser P.How decisions are reached: physician and patient. Ann Intern Med. 1982; 97:262-8.
9.
Hershey JC, Baron J.Clinical reasoning and cognitive processes. Med Decis Making . 1987; 7:203-11.
10.
Tversky A., Kahneman D.The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science . 1981; 211:453-8.
11.
Weinstein M.Challenge for cost-effectiveness research. Med Decis Making. 1986; 6:194-8.
12.
Simon H.Administrative behavior. 2nd ed. New York: MacMillan, 1957.
13.
Slovic P., Lichtenstein S.Preference reversals: a broader perspective. Am Economic Rev . 1983; 73:596-605.
14.
Beauchamp T., Childress JFPrinciples of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
15.
Brett ASHidden ethical issues in clinical decision analysis. N Engl J Med. 1981; 305:1150-2.
16.
Till JEQuality-of-life assessment: beware the tyranny of the majority. Humane Med. 1986; 2:100-9.
17.
Fischer GWConvergent validation of decomposed multi-attribute utility assessment procedures for risky and riskless decisions. Org Behav Hum Perform. 1977; 18:295-315.
18.
Hershey JC, Kunreuther HC, Schoemaker Pjh.Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions. Management Sci. 1982; 28:936-54.
19.
Hershey JC, Schoemaker Pjh.Probability versus certainty equivalence methods in utility measurement: are they equivalent?Management Sci. 1985; 31:1213-31.
20.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R., Ciampi A., Till JE, Boyd NFThe measurement of patients' values in medicine . Med Decis Making. 1982; 2:449-62.
21.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJ, Tibshirani R., Ciampi A., Till JE, Boyd NFDescribing health states: methodologic issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care. 1984; 22:543-62.
22.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Sutherland HJProcedures for value assessment. Rec Adv Nurs. 1987; 17:169-85.
23.
O'Connor Amc , Boyd NF, Warde P., Stolbach L., Till JEEliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology: influence of treatment outcome description, elicitation technique and treatment experience on preferences. J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40:811-8.
24.
O'Connor AM, Davies BL, Buhler PL, Nadon C., Dulberg CS, Benzie RJReliability and validity of measures used to elicit women's decisions about smoking during pregnancy. (Submitted for publication, 1990)
25.
Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MCPreferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods . Med Decis Making. 1984; 4:315-29.
26.
Schwartz WBDecision analysis: a look at the chief complaints . N Engl J Med. 1979; 300:566-9.
27.
Torrance GWSocial preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socioecon Plann Sci. 1976; 10:129-36.
28.
Torrance G.Toward a utility theory foundation for health status index models. Health Serv Res. 1976 ; 11:349-69.
29.
Torrance GW , Boyle MH, Horwood SPApplication of multiattribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Res. 1982; 30:1043-69.
30.
Salk D.Polio immunization policy in the United States: a new challenge for a new generation. Am J Public Health. 1988; 78:296-300.
31.
Williams S.The limits of quantitative ethics. Med Decis Making1987; 7:121-4.
32.
Gardiner PC, Edwards W.Public values: multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making . In: Kaplan MF, Schwartz S, eds. Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press, 1975; 1-37.
33.
Krzsysztofowicz R.Risk attitude hypotheses of utility theory. In: Stigum BP, Wenstop F, eds. Foundations of utility and risk theory with applications . Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983; 201-16.
34.
Eeckhoudt L. , Lebrun T., Sailly JCRisk-aversion and physicians' medical decision-making . Health Econ. 1985; 4:273-81.
35.
Bell DERegret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Res . 1982; 30:961-81.
36.
Bell DEDisappointment in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Res. 1985; 33:1-27.
Keeney RL, Winkler RLEvaluating decision strategies for equity of public risks. Operations Res. 1985; 33:955-70.
50.
Sarin RKMeasuring equity in public risk. Operations Res. 1985; 33:210-7.
51.
Dyer JS, Sarin RKMeasurable multiattribute value functions. Operations Res . 1979; 27:810-22.
52.
Stillwell WG , von Winterfeldt D., John RSComparing hierarchical and nonhierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models. Management Sci. 1987; 33:442-50.
53.
Phelps CERisk aversion in medical decisions: variance matters. Med Decis Making. 1988; 8:349.
54.
Pauker SG, Pauker SP, Wong JBThe utility of thresholds and the threshold utility. Med Decis Making. 1987; 7201-2.
55.
Calabresi G., Bobbit PGTragic choices. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978.
56.
Weinstein MC , Shepard DS, Pliskin JSThe economic value of changing mortality probabilities: a decision-theoretic approach. Q Econ. 1980; 44:373-96.
57.
Roach PJ, Fleming C., Hagen MD, Pauker SGProstatic cancer in a patient with asymptomatic HIV infection: are some lives more equal than others?Med Decis Making. 1988; 8:132-44.
58.
Howard RAOn making life and death decisions. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA. Societal risk assessment. New York: Plenum Publishing, 1980; 89-113.
59.
Ewart PJ, Ford JS, Lin C-Y.Probability for statistical decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
60.
Nightingale SDRisk preference and laboratoiy use. Med Decis Making. 1987; 7:168-73.
61.
Lopes LLDecision making in the short run. J Exp Psychol. Hum Learn Mem1981; 7:377-85.
62.
Koplan JP, Hinman ARDecision analysis, public policy, and pertussis: are they compatible?Med Decis Making. 1987; 7:71-3.
63.
Kirkwood CW , Sarin RKRanking with partial information: a method and an application. Operations Res. 1985; 33:38-48.
64.
Miyamoto JM , Eraker SAParameter estimates for a QALY utility model . Med Decis Making. 1985; 5:191-214.
65.
Goodwin B.Using political ideas. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1987; 279-303.
66.
Harsanyi JCCan the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls's theory. Am Pol Sci Rev . 1975; 69:594-606.
67.
Rawls J.A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
68.
Hinman AR, Koplan JP, Orenstein WA, Brink EW, Nkowane BMLive or inactivated poliomyelitis vaccine: an analysis of benefits and risks. Am J Public Health. 1988; 78:291-5.
69.
Hinman AR, Koplan JP, Orenstein WA, Brink EWDecision analysis and polio immunization policy. Am J Public Health, 1988; 78:301-3.
70.
Bursztajn H. , Hamm RM, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A.The decision-analytic approach to medical malpractice law: formal proposals and informal syntheses. Med Decis Making. 1984; 4:401-49.
71.
Mazur DJInformed consent: court viewpoints and medical decision making. Med Decis Making. 1986; 6:224-30.
72.
Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S.Response mode, framing, and information-processing effects in risk assessment . In: Hogarth R, ed. New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science: question-framing and response consistency, no. 11. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982; 21-36.
73.
Lipscomb J. , Shachtman RH, Mesel E., et al.Health status maximization and manpower allocation. Final Report to the National Center for Health Services Research for Grant HS 02497 to Duke University, 1984.
