Show simple item record

dc.creatorFuller, Lisaen
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-08T23:33:12Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-08T23:33:12Zen
dc.date.created2006-05en
dc.date.issued2006-05en
dc.identifierdoi:10.1111/dewb.2006.6.issue-2en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationDeveloping World Bioethics 2006 May; 6(2): 59-70en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Justified+commitments?+Considering+resource+allocation+and+fairness+in+Medecins+sans+Frontieres-Holland&title=Developing+World+Bioethics+&volume=6&issue=2&date=2006-05&au=Fuller,+Lisaen
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dewb.2006.6.issue-2en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/972977en
dc.description.abstractNon-governmental aid programs are an important source of health care for many people in the developing world. Despite the central role non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in the delivery of these vital services, for the most part they either lack formal systems of accountability to their recipients altogether, or have only very weak requirements in this regard. This is because most NGOs are both self-mandating and self- regulating. What is needed in terms of accountability is some means by which all the relevant stakeholders can have their interests represented and considered. An ideally accountable decision-making process for NGOs should identify acceptable justifications and rule out unacceptable ones. Thus, the point of this paper is to evaluate three prominent types of justification given for decisions taken at the Dutch headquarters of Medecins sans Frontieres. They are: population health justifications, mandate-based justifications and advocacy-based justifications. The central question at issue is whether these justifications are sufficiently robust to answer the concerns and objections that various stakeholders may have. I am particularly concerned with the legitimacy these justifications have in the eyes of project beneficiaries. I argue that special responsibilities to certain communities can arise out of long-term engagement with them, but that this type of priority needs to be constrained such that it does not exclude other potential beneficiaries to an undesirable extent. Finally, I suggest several new institutional mechanisms that would enhance the overall equity of decisions and so would ultimately contribute to the legitimacy of the organization as a whole.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceeweb:295995en
dc.subjectAccountabilityen
dc.subjectDoctorsen
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Careen
dc.subjectOrganizationsen
dc.subjectResource Allocationen
dc.subjectResponsibilitiesen
dc.subjectStakeholdersen
dc.subject.classificationSociology of Health Careen
dc.subject.classificationAllocation of Health Care Resourcesen
dc.subject.classificationInternational and Political Dimensions of Biology and Medicineen
dc.titleJustified Commitments? Considering Resource Allocation and Fairness in Medecins Sans Frontieres-Hollanden
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2022 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885