Ethical Challenges for Plastic Surgery in Treating Internationally Adopted Children With Cleft Lip and Palate.

A large number of children with cleft lip and palate (CLP) were adopted to Sweden in the last decade, mainly from China. Most of the children arrived with unoperated palates and at later ages than earlier years. This article aims to present an overview of ethical challenges within the practice of international adoption of children with CLP from the perspective of plastic surgery in a welfare health care system. An overview of CLP treatment is presented, followed by a normative discussion and ethical analysis using the 4 principles of Beauchamp and Childress: non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. The following themes and subthemes were analyzed: the search for normality and the potential challenge of being adopted and having CLP-treatment autonomy of the child and future preferences, adoptive parents' expectations of plastic surgery, the journey of the adoptee and the adoptive parents; and general issues-reconstructive possibilities and consequences of CLP in the country of origin, information to the adoptive parents, health care needs, and reconstructive possibilities for children with CLP in the receiving country. Clinical implications are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided.

Nurses' priority-setting for older nursing home residents during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Ethical principles behind prioritization in healthcare are continuously relevant. However, applying ethical principles during times of increased need, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, is challenging. Also, little is known about nursing home nurses' prioritizations in their work to achieve well-being and health for nursing home residents. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore nursing home nurses' priority-setting for older nursing home residents in Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESEARCH DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND RESEARCH CONTEXT: We conducted a qualitative interview study. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (retrospective self-reports) between February and May 2021 with 21 nursing home nurses. To help respondents to recall their memories, we used the critical incident technique (CIT). We analyzed data within the theoretical framework and the methodological orientation of content analysis. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Written and verbal consent was obtained before the interviews, and information was given to participants informing them that participation was entirely voluntary. The Swedish Ethical Review Agency gave an advisory opinion stating that there were no ethical objections to the research project (Dnr. 2020-05649). FINDINGS: We identified an overarching theme-nursing home nurses struggling on multiple fronts, "just do it"-and seven categories: striving for survival and caring about a dignified death; responding sensitively to relatives' expectations; ranking the urgency of needed care; responding to input from different actors; combating the spread of infection in unconventional ways; taking the lead and doing what is required; and following the ideals of person-centered nursing. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' priority-setting for older nursing homes residents during the COVID-19 pandemic meant strain and struggle. In some cases, nurses had taken responsibility for priorities falling outside their statutory powers. Different demands and interests affected nurses' priorities. Nursing home nurses need organizational and managerial support to prioritize.

Is a larger patient benefit always better in healthcare priority setting?

When considering the introduction of a new intervention in a budget constrained healthcare system, priority setting based on fair principles is fundamental. In many jurisdictions, a multi-criteria approach with several different considerations is employed, including severity and cost-effectiveness. Such multi-criteria approaches raise questions about how to balance different considerations against each other, and how to understand the logical or normative relations between them. For example, some jurisdictions make explicit reference to a large patient benefit as such a consideration. However, since patient benefit is part of a cost-effectiveness assessment it is not clear how to balance considerations of greater patient benefit against considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to explore the role of a large patient benefit as an independent criterion for priority setting in a healthcare system also considering severity and cost-effectiveness. By taking the opportunity cost of new interventions (i.e., the health forgone in patients already receiving treatment) into account, we argue that patient benefit has a complex relationship to priority setting. More specifically, it cannot be reasonably concluded that large patient benefits should be given priority if severity, cost-effectiveness, and opportunity costs are held constant. Since we cannot find general support for taking patient benefit into account as an independent criterion from any of the most discussed theories about distributive justice: utilitarianism, prioritarianism, telic egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, it is reasonable to avoid doing so. Hence, given the complexity of the role of patient benefit, we conclude that in priority practice, a large patient benefit should not be considered as an independent criterion, on top of considerations of severity and cost-effectiveness.

Should relational effects be considered in health care priority setting?

It is uncontroversial to claim that the extent to which health care interventions benefit patients is a relevant consideration for health care priority setting. However, when effects accrue to the individual patient, effects of a more indirect kind may accrue to other individuals as well, such as the patient's children, friends, or partner. If, and if so how, such relational effects should be considered relevant in priority setting is contentious. In this paper, we illustrate this question by using disease-modifying drugs for Alzheimer's disease as a case in point. The ethical analysis begins by sketching the so-called prima facie case for ascribing moral weight to relational effects and then moves on to consider a number of objections to it. We argue that, whereas one set of objections may be dismissed, there is another set of arguments that poses more serious challenges for including relational effects in priority setting.

Severity as a moral qualifier of malady.

The overarching aim of this article is to scrutinize how severity can work as a qualifier for the moral impetus of malady. While there is agreement that malady is of negative value, there is disagreement about precisely how this is so. Nevertheless, alleviating disease, injury, and associated suffering is almost universally considered good. Furthermore, the strength of a diseased person's moral claims for our attention and efforts will inevitably vary. This article starts by reflecting on what kind of moral impetus malady incites. We then analyze how severity may qualify this impetus. We do so by discussing the relationship between severity and need, well-being and disvalue, death, urgency, rule of rescue, and distributive justice. We then summarize our thoughts about severity as a moral qualifier. We conclude that severity is, and should continue to be seen, as a morally significant concept that deserves continued attention in the future.

Patient experience of implant loss after immediate breast reconstruction: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is an integral part of modern breast cancer treatment. Our aim was to investigate patient experience with implant loss after IBR by using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight informants. We analyzed data according to the IPA flexible seven-stage process and four main themes were developed: immediate breast reconstruction as the indisputable choice, a difficult experience, an altered body: redefining normality, and trying to cope. The experience of implant loss appears to affect women for many years and might overshadow some of the benefits of IBR.

Should Severity Assessments in Healthcare Priority Setting be Risk- and Time-Sensitive?

BACKGROUND: Severity plays an essential role in healthcare priority setting. Still, severity is an under-theorised concept. One controversy concerns whether severity should be risk- and/or time-sensitive. The aim of this article is to provide a normative analysis of this question. METHODS: A reflective equilibrium approach is used, where judgements and arguments concerning severity in preventive situations are related to overall normative judgements and background theories in priority-setting, aiming for consistency. Analysis, discussion, and conclusions: There is an argument for taking the risk of developing a condition into account, and we do this when we consider the risk of dying in the severity assessment. If severity is discounted according to risk, this will 'dilute' severity, depending on how well we are able to delineate the population, which is dependent on the current level of knowledge. This will potentially have a more far-reaching effect when considering primary prevention, potentially the de-prioritisation of effective preventive treatments in relation to acute, less-effective treatments. The risk arguments are dependent on which population is being assessed. If we focus on the whole population at risk, with T0 as the relevant population, this supports the risk argument. If we instead focus on the population of as-yet (at T0) unidentified individuals who will develop the condition at T1, risk will become irrelevant, and severity will not be risk sensitive. The strongest argument for time-sensitive severity (or for discounting future severity) is the future development of technology. On a short timescale, this will differ between different diagnoses, supporting individualised discounting. On a large timescale, a more general discounting might be acceptable. However, we need to also consider the systemic effects of allowing severity to be risk- and time-sensitive.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Learning and practicing more value-reflective, problem-setting health technology assessment: experiences and lessons from the VALIDATE project.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a formative evaluation of applying the VALIDATE approach in practice by (i) assessing how students appreciated the e-learning course, (ii) exploring how, for what purposes and with what outcomes the acquired VALIDATE competences subsequently were used in internships in different institutional contexts, and how this was shaped by these contexts, and (iii) what this shows on real-world use of VALIDATE. METHODS: Comparative discussion of experiences of applying the VALIDATE approach via a semistructured survey and oral feedback from e-course students; final reports on internships in health technology assessment (HTA) practice, followed by semistructured interviews with interns and supervisors to complement and interpret results. RESULTS: All students considered the VALIDATE approach an enlightening and important addition to current HTA knowledge, especially regarding understanding the relation between empirical analysis and normative inquiry, identifying policy relevant questions and using the method of reconstructing interpretive frames for scoping. The latter appeared intellectually challenging and requiring some prior HTA knowledge. The use the VALIDATE approach in practice shows that interns productively redefined the HTA problem, based on appreciation of different stakeholders' definition of the issue; they experienced constraints from retrieving all relevant perspectives from existing literature as well as from institutional rules and routines. CONCLUSIONS: Some challenges in applying the VALIDATE approach deserve attention for its future use: currently used research approaches often assume a problem as "given"; and the data needed on different perspectives is often not reported in scientific literature. Finally, data gathering on and evaluation of value dimensions was experienced as challenging.

Integrating Empirical Analysis and Normative Inquiry in Health Technology Assessment: The Values in Doing Assessments of Health Technologies Approach.

Health technology assessment (HTA) aims, through empirical analysis, to shed light on the value of health technologies (O'Rourke et al. [2020, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 36, 187-90]). HTA is, then, where facts and values meet. But how, where, and when do facts and values meet in HTA? Currently, HTA is usually portrayed as a sequential process, starting with empirical analysis (assessment), followed by a deliberation on the implications of the findings for a judgment of a health technology's value (appraisal). In this paper, we will argue that in HTA, empirical analysis and normative inquiry are much more closely entwined. In fact, as we hope to show, normative commitments act as an indispensable guide for the collection and interpretation of empirical evidence. Drawing on policy sciences, we will suggest a concrete methodology that can help HTA practitioners to integrate empirical analysis and normative inquiry in a transparent way. The proposed methodology can be conceived as a concrete means for conducting a scoping exercise in HTA. Moreover, it offers a distinct way of giving stakeholders a structural and constructive role in HTA. This paper outlines the approach developed by the values in doing assessments of health technologies project, a project funded by the Erasmus+ program (contract number 2018-1-NL01-KA203-038960), which is the European Union's program to support education, training, youth, and sport in Europe. The project has resulted in an E-learning course, an accompanying handbook, and a consensus statement, all freely available from the project's website www.validatehta.eu.

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications.

BACKGROUND: When rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a 'grandfather clause' when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians' and patient organization representatives' experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: Participants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients' need for treatment (e.g., the treatment's effectiveness and the patient's medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment's effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.

An analysis of how health systems integrated priority-setting in the pandemic planning in a sample of Latin America and the Caribbean countries.

BACKGROUND: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical description and analysis of how health systems considered priority-setting in the COVID-19 response and preparedness plans of a sample of 14 LAC countries; and to identify the associated research gaps. METHODS: A documentary analysis of COVID-19 preparedness and response plans was performed in a sample of 14 countries in the LAC region. We assessed the degree to which the documented priority-setting processes adhered to established quality indicators of effective priority-setting included in the Kapiriri and Martin framework. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the degree to which the reports addressed the quality parameters for each individual country, as well as a cross-country comparison to explore whether parameters varied according to independent variables. RESULTS: While all plans were led and supported by the national governments, most included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective priority-setting. There was no systematic pattern between the number of quality indicators and the country's health system and political contexts; however, the countries that had the least number of quality indicators tended to be economically disadvantaged. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the literature by providing the first descriptive analysis of the inclusion of priority-setting during a pandemic, using the case of COVID-19 response and preparedness plans in the LAC region. The analysis found that despite the strong evidence of political will and stakeholder participation, none of the plans presented a clear priority-setting process, or used a formal priority-setting framework, to define interventions, populations, geographical regions, healthcare setting or resources prioritized. There is need for case studies that analyse how priority-setting actually occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and the degree to which the implementation reflected the plans and the parameters of effective priority-setting, as well as the impact of the prioritization processes on population health, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups.

The costs of human uterus transplantation: a study based on the nine cases of the initial Swedish live donor trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs of live donor uterus transplantation in a European setting? SUMMARY ANSWER: The total costs for preoperative investigations, including IVF, and live donor uterus transplantation including postoperative costs for 2 months, were calculated to be €74 564 (mean), with the costs of recipient being somewhat higher than for donor and the cost components of total costs distributed between sick leave (25.7%), postoperative hospitalization (17.8%), surgery (17.1%), preoperative investigations (15.7%), anaesthesia (9.7%), drugs (7.8%), tests after surgery (4.0%) and for re-hospitalization (2.2%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Uterus transplantation has proved to be successful by demonstrations of live births, both after live donor and deceased donor procedures. The transplantation is considered as a complex and expensive infertility treatment. There exist no analyses of costs involved in uterus transplantation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective cohort study included nine uterus transplantations procedures, performed in Sweden in 2013. Study duration of this health economic study included 6-12 months of pre-transplantation investigations and the time interval from transplantation to 2 months after. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Nine triads of uterus recipient, partner of recipient and uterus donor participated. All prospective recipients were in stable relationships and performed IVF with their partners before transplantation. The nine donors were relatives or family friends. The recipients and donors underwent pre-transplantation investigations with imaging, laboratory tests and psychological/medical screening prior to transplantation. Transplantation was by laparotomy in both donor and recipient. Standard immunosuppression and postoperative medication were used. After discharge from the hospital, the recipients were followed frequently with laboratory tests and examinations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The mean costs for preoperative investigations, including IVF, and live donor uterus transplantation with postoperative costs for 2 months, were calculated to be €74 564 (range €50 960-€99 658), from a societal perspective. The four largest components were cost of sick leave (€19 164), cost of postoperative hospitalization (€13 246), surgery cost (€12 779) and costs for preoperative investigations, including IVF (€11 739). Smaller components were costs for anaesthesia (€7207), costs for drugs (€5821), costs for post-surgical tests (€2985) and costs for re-hospitalization (€1623). The costs of the recipient (€42 984) were somewhat higher than the costs of the donor (€31 580), but in terms of costs, they should be viewed as one entity. By using a health care perspective, excluding cost for productivity loss, the total costs would be reduced by 26%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation is the restricted sample size and that this is in the experimental, clinical stage of development. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results provide the first information concerning the costs for pre-transplantation investigations and uterus transplantation procedures with postoperative follow-up. We consider the total estimate to be in the higher interval, because of the extensive research protocol. It is likely that the cost of live donor uterus transplantation will vary between countries and that the costs will be lower in a future clinical setting. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was received from the Jane and Dan Olsson Foundation for Science; the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation; an ALF grant from the Swedish state under an agreement between the government and the county councils; and the Swedish Research Council. None of the authors have a conflict of interest with regard to the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01844362.

Novel drug candidates targeting Alzheimer's disease: ethical challenges with identifying the relevant patient population.

Intensive research is carried out to develop a disease-modifying drug for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The development of drug candidates that reduce Aß or tau in the brain seems particularly promising. However, these drugs target people at risk for AD, who must be identified before they have any, or only moderate, symptoms associated with the disease. There are different strategies that may be used to identify these individuals (eg, population screening, cascade screening, etc). Each of these strategies raises different ethical challenges. In this paper, we analyse these challenges in relation to the risk stratification for AD necessary for using these drugs. We conclude that the new drugs must generate large health benefits for people at risk of developing AD to justify the ethical costs associated with current risk stratification methods, benefits much larger than current drug candidates have. This conclusion raises a new set of ethical questions that should be further discussed.

Should we accept a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs? A review and analysis of egalitarian arguments.

In recent years, the issue of accepting a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs has been the subject of discussion in health care policy agencies and the academic literature. This article aims to provide an analysis of broadly egalitarian arguments for and against accepting higher costs per health improvement. More specifically, we aim to investigate which arguments one should agree upon putting aside and where further explorations are needed. We identify three kinds of arguments in the literature: considerations of substantial equality, formal equality, and opportunity cost. We argue that considerations of substantial equality do not support higher costs per health improvement orphan drugs, even if such considerations are considered valid. On the contrary, arguments of formal equality may support accepting a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs. However, in order to do so, a number of both normative and empirical issues must be resolved; these issues are identified in the article. For instance, it must be settled to what extent the opportunity cost in terms of foregone health for other patients is acceptable in order to uphold formal equality. We conclude that certain arguments can be set aside, and future focus should be put on the unresolved normative and empirical issues related to formal equality and opportunity cost.

Do not despair about severity-yet.

In a recent extended essay, philosopher Daniel Hausman goes a long way towards dismissing severity as a morally relevant attribute in the context of priority setting in healthcare. In this response, we argue that although Hausman certainly points to real problems with how severity is often interpreted and operationalised within the priority setting context, the conclusion that severity does not contain plausible ethical content is too hasty. Rather than abandonment, our proposal is to take severity seriously by carefully mapping the possibly multiple underlying accounts to well-established ethical theories, in a way that is both morally defensible and aligned with the term's colloquial uses.

Rethinking patient involvement in healthcare priority setting.

With healthcare systems under pressure from scarcity of resources and ever-increasing demand for services, difficult priority setting choices need to be made. At the same time, increased attention to patient involvement in a wide range of settings has given rise to the idea that those who are eventually affected by priority setting decisions should have a say in those decisions. In this paper, we investigate arguments for the inclusion of patient representatives in priority setting bodies at the policy level. We find that the standard justifications for patient representation, such as to achieve patient-relevant decisions, empowerment of patients, securing legitimacy of decisions, and the analogy with democracy, all fall short of supporting patient representation in this context. We conclude by briefly outlining an alternative proposal for patient participation that involves patient consultants.

Core competencies for ethics experts in health technology assessment.

OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus on who might be qualified to conduct ethical analysis in the field of health technology assessment (HTA). Is there a specific expertise or skill set for doing this work? The aim of this article is to (i) clarify the concept of ethics expertise and, based on this, (ii) describe and specify the characteristics of ethics expertise in HTA. METHODS: Based on the current literature and experiences in conducting ethical analysis in HTA, a group of members of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Interest Group on Ethical Issues in HTA critically analyzed the collected information during two face-to-face workshops. On the basis of the analysis, working definitions of "ethics expertise" and "core competencies" of ethics experts in HTA were developed. This paper reports the output of the workshop and subsequent revisions and discussions online among the authors. RESULTS: Expertise in a domain consists of both explicit and tacit knowledge and is acquired by formal training and social learning. There is a ubiquitous ethical expertise shared by most people in society; nevertheless, some people acquire specialist ethical expertise. To become an ethics expert in the field of HTA, one needs to acquire general knowledge about ethical issues as well as specific knowledge of the ethical domain in HTA. The core competencies of ethics experts in HTA consist of three fundamental elements: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: The competencies described here can be used by HTA agencies and others involved in HTA to call attention to and strengthen ethical analysis in HTA.

An ethics analysis of the rationale for publicly funded plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly struggling with resource constraints, given demographic changes, technological development, and citizen expectations. The aim of this article is to normatively analyze different suggestions regarding how publicly financed plastic surgery should be delineated in order to identify a well-considered, normative rationale. The scope of the article is to discuss general principles and not define specific conditions or domains of plastic surgery that should be treated within the publicly financed system. METHODS: This analysis uses a reflective equilibrium approach, according to which considered normative judgements in one area should be logically and argumentatively coherent with considered normative judgements and background theories at large within a system. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In exploring functional versus non-function conditions, we argue that it is difficult to find a principled reason for an absolute priority of functional conditions over non-functional conditions. Nevertheless, functional conditions are relatively easier to establish objectively, and surgical intervention has a clear causal effect on treating a functional condition. Considering non-functional conditions that require plastic surgery [i.e., those related to appearance or symptomatic conditions (not affecting function)], we argue that the patient needs to experience some degree of suffering (and not only a preference for plastic surgery), which must be 'validated' in some form by the healthcare system. This validation is required for both functional and non-functional conditions. Functional conditions are validated by distinguishing between statistically normal and abnormal functioning. Similarly, for non-functional conditions, statistical normality represents a potential method for distinguishing between what should and should not be publicly funded. However, we acknowledge that such a concept requires further development.