Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers

Jackie M. Street, Helen Marshall, Annette J. Braunack-Mayer, Wendy A. Rogers, Philip Ryan, FluViews Team

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Abstract

This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationBig picture bioethics
Subtitle of host publicationdeveloping democratic policy in contested domains
EditorsSusan Dodds, Rachel A. Ankeny
Place of PublicationSwitzerland
PublisherSpringer, Springer Nature
Pages245-261
Number of pages17
ISBN (Electronic)9783319322407
ISBN (Print)9783319322391
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Publication series

NameThe international library of ethics, law and technology
Volume16
ISSN (Print)1875-0044
ISSN (Electronic)1875-0036

Keywords

  • Community participation
  • Deliberation
  • Pandemic
  • Public engagement
  • Resource allocation

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this