Related resources
Full-text held externally
- PMID: 24807744
- UKPMCID: 24807744
- DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9566-9
Search for item elsewhere
University researcher(s)
Academic department(s)
Scientific second-order 'nudging' or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes.
Ploug, Thomas; Holm, Søren; Brodersen, John
Medicine, health care, and philosophy. 2014;.
Access to files
Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Full-text is available externally using the following links:
Full-text held externally
- PMID: 24807744
- UKPMCID: 24807744
- DOI: 10.1007/s11019-014-9566-9
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 3Â 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.