This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Deber, R. B. Articles by Goel, V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Deber, R. B. Articles by Goel, V. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Using Explicit Decision Rules to Manage Issues of Justice, Risk, and Ethics in Decision Analysis

When Is It Not Rational to Maximize Expected Utility?

Vivek Goel, MD, MSc

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)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 3, 181-194 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9001000305


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. G. Dolan A Method for Evaluating Health Care Providers' Decision Making: The Provider Decision Process Assessment Instrument Med Decis Making, January 1, 1999; 19(1): 38 - 41. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. E. Cowen, B. J. Miles, D. F. Cahill, R. B. Giesler, J. R. Beck, and M. W. Kattan The Danger of Applying Group-level Utilities in Decision Analyses of the Treatment of Localized Prostate Cancer in Individual Patients Med Decis Making, October 1, 1998; 18(4): 376 - 380. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Krahn, G. Naglie, D. Naimark, D. A. Redelmeier, and A. S. Detsky Primer on Medical Decision Analysis: Part 4-Analyzing the Model and Interpreting the Results Med Decis Making, April 1, 1997; 17(2): 142 - 151. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. S. Richardson, A. S. Detsky, the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, G. Guyatt, D. Cook, H. Gerstein, R. Hayward, A. Holbrook, R. Jaeschke, E. Juniper, et al. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: VII. How to Use a Clinical Decision Analysis B. What Are the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients? JAMA, May 24, 1995; 273(20): 1610 - 1613. [Abstract] [PDF]