PHI 200 Assessment Normative Theories
PHI 200 Assessment Normative Theories
You are called to consult in the Critical Care Unit of your
local hospital. 53-year-old JoEllen was admitted after taking an overdose of
prescription medications with alcohol. On admission, she said, “Not
supposed to be here . . . ,” but soon became uncommunicative, and her
condition is deteriorating rapidly. Her son has arrived with a notarized advance
directive in which JoEllen specifically asks not to be placed on life support.
What should you recommend to the attending health professionals?
Write a paper addressing this topic, supporting your
position with credible research. You may begin your research with suggested
Resources, but you are also expected to conduct your own independent research
into the scholarly and professional resources of the field. The Capella library
is recommended as a source for reliable materials.
In explaining your position, address each of the following
What features of the situation are relevant for making a
What would a deontologist like Immanuel Kant recommend?
What would a consequentialist like John Stuart Mill
How do you justify your own decision about what to do?
Written communication: Written communication should be free
of errors that detract from the overall message.
APA formatting: Include a title page and a references page,
formatted according to APA (6th edition) style and formatting.
References: A typical paper will include support from a
minimum of 3–5 references. You may use some of the materials recommended in the
Resources, but you should also include support from your independent research
of scholarly or professional materials.
Length: A typical paper will be 4–6 typed, double-spaced
pages in length.
Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12-point.
W.Warner Burke, in Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 2004
4.3.1 Participative Management—One Best Way
A normative theory, Likert’s position was that any large organization could be considered as one of four possible systems. System 1 was authority centered, top-down, and unilateral; system 2 was a benevolent autocracy; system 3 was consultative (i.e., ask subordinates for their ideas and opinions but with the manager reserving the right to make the final decision); and system 4 was participative management with an emphasis on consensual decision making. Likert’s argument was that system 4 was the best way to manage an organization. OD practice that relies on this theory includes survey feedback and team consensus decision making (i.e., change to a participative form of management).
S. Miller, in Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012
Regarding normative theory, we need to ask what the collective end or ends of the media ought to be; that is, what collective goods do they produce? The print and electronic media have an important institutional purpose as the Fourth Estate. That is, public communication in the public interest involves at least the following subsidiary collective ends and associated roles: (1) The media provide a public forum enabling communication to the public at large, (2) the media have the task of unearthing and disseminating information of importance to the public, and (3) the media function as public communicators. If a particular media organization is not discharging these obligations as an institution, then arguably there is no great cause for concern if it does not survive; it is simply another failed business venture.
F. Breyer, in Encyclopedia of Health Economics, 2014
Positive Theory: The Political Economy of Social Health Insurance
Having discussed normative theories of the design of SHI, it is important to assess what can be expected from political decisions in democracies. In particular, the theory should explain:
the apparent lack of generosity of the benefit package of SHI, characterized by the massive use of nonprice rationing methods and the simultaneous presence of private financing of supplementary healthcare services; and
the widespread phenomenon of financing SHI with income-dependent contributions (or taxes) and no risk-rated premiums, in which there is a twofold redistribution from the low to the high risks and from high to low earners.
As to the first point, several models have been put forward (e.g., by Breyer, 1995; Gouveia, 1997), which show that under plausible assumptions on preferences, the majority of voters will support a two-tier system in which citizens can top up their SHI coverage with PHI (for an opposite result, cf. Hindriks and De Donder, 2003). This is a typical ‘ends-against-the-middle’ result because the groups of voters who are in favor of a small SHI system are members of the lowest and highest income brackets, whereas middle- and high-income earners end up buying supplementary coverage.
To the second point, Kifmann (2005) showed that there can be majority support for a system with income-dependent contributions if the choice of regime is taken at the ‘constitutional stage,’ i.e., before the individuals know their health risk, whereas the details of SHI are decided at a later stage after risk types have been revealed. Then even a high earner can vote in favor of a redistributive SHI if the alternative is private insurance with risk-rated premiums and no insurance against a deteriorating risk type over time. This is particularly likely if individuals are sufficiently risk averse and the premiums in a system with risk rating sufficiently dispersed, whereas income inequality in the society should not be too extreme to make the implicit income redistribution too expensive for the high earners. This may explain why in many countries with SHI, contributions are levied only on labor incomes and even on those only up to a ceiling to limit the volume of income redistribution. However, separating ‘pure’ income redistribution from SHI through flat premiums may be more efficient, but not politically feasible because in such a system the political support for SHI with a generous benefit package, which comes only from the high-risk group, may be too small.