Abstract

The author reflects on the potential interdependence between empirical and normative research in the context of allocating scarce health care resources. Relevant aspects are discussed with respect to an approach designated as empirical social choice (ESC), which intends to provide empirical evidence on the tenability of axioms characterising different arbitration schemes. Different roles for empirical work are distinguished. Scholars in the field of ESC claim that their studies reveal ethical judgements and, thereby, provide input to an interpersonal reflective equilibrium. Furthermore, it is argued that the roles ascribed determine answers on four central methodological question: First, should studies utilise hypothetical or real distribution problems? Second, who should be asked? Third, which perspective should be taken? Fourth, should quantitative or qualitative approaches be used?