1887

n Journal for Juridical Science - Revisiting the judicial role in the allocation of healthcare resources : on deference, democratic dialogue and deliberation

USD

 

Abstract

<B>Herbeskouing van die geregtelike rol in die toewysing van gesondheidsorghulpbronne : oor ontsag, demokratiese dialoog en beraadslaging</B> <BR>Die doel van hierdie artikel is om 'n kritiese herbeskouing te doen van die aard en waarde van die geregtelike rol in situasies waar howe uitspraak gee oor vrae wat verband hou met die toewysing van skaars gesondheidsorghulpbronne &lt;I&gt;via&lt;/I&gt; die prosesse van publieke reg. Die argument wat gespostuleer word is dat die oorwegende negatiewe perspektief wat ten opsigte van geregtelike betrokkenheid in aangeleenthede van hierdie aard gehuldig word, alhoewel tot 'n mate verklaarbaar, nie daarin slaag om die potensiaal van publiekereg-beregtiging om as 'n &lt;I&gt;beraadslagende&lt;/I&gt; meganisme te funksioneer, weergee nie. Dit is belangrik omdat die heersende draad in kontemporêre gesondheidsbeleidsteorie die daarstelling van prosedures deur middel van beraadslagende reëlings, as 'n respons op die probleme identifiseer, vernaamlik dié van legitimiteit wat gegenereer is deur die evolusie en ontwikkeling van eksplisiete strategieë van prioriteitstelling of die 'rantsoenering' van toegang tot gesondheidsorghulpbronne.Ten einde die vooruitsigte van die howe om te voldoen aan 'n beraadslagende rol van hierdie aard te assesseer, sal 'n vergelykende opname van drie jurisdiksies waarin sodanige aangeleenthede voor die howe gekom het, te wete Engeland, Kanada en Suid-Afrika, uitgevoer word.

The objective of this paper is to engage in critical reconsideration of the nature and value of the judicial role in situations where courts adjudicate upon questions connected to the allocation of scarce healthcare resources via the processes of public law. The argument posited is that the predominantly negative perspective which is adopted towards judicial involvement in issues of this type, although to some extent explicable, fails to capture the potential for public law adjudication to function as a deliberative mechanism. This is important because the dominant strand in contemporary health policy theory identifies proceduralisation through deliberative arrangements as a response to the problems, notably those of legitimacy, which have been generated by the evolution and development of explicit strategies of priority-setting or the 'rationing' of access to healthcare resources. In order to assess the prospects of the courts fulfilling a deliberative role of this type, a comparative survey of three jurisdictions in which such issues have come before the courts - England, Canada and South Africa - will be conducted.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/juridic/30/2/EJC55562
2005-12-01
2016-12-07
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error