IUCB Director, Peter Schwartz, MD, PhD, and Faculty Investigators, Colin Halverson, PhD, and Josh Rager, MD, MA, MS, recently published open peer commentaries in the American Journal of Bioethics. Responding to a paper (Watts and Newson, 2026) which argues for the inclusion of personal utility into the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) framework for genetic testing, Drs. Halverson, Schwartz, and Rager all call into question the limitations of such a view.
Dr. Halverson takes a more moderate view in his commentary, acknowledging that personal utility is indeed morally relevant, but arguing that it’s limited in the sense that it must be considered within the context of distributive justice and medical resources. Although patients often derive meaning and identity from an illness, this risks overmedicalizing—and shifting medical resources to—domains of self-knowledge and personal meaning-making.
Drs. Schwartz and Rager, on the other hand, adopt a somewhat more pessimistic approach, claiming that one must also consider the personal disutilities in such cases. For instance, in screening for lung cancer there are certain burdens, discomforts, or risks involved.
Both commentaries bring up interesting points to consider regarding personal utility—an idea which on the surface may seem like a net positive for patients and clinicians. However, as shown by Drs. Halverson, Schwartz, and Rager, there are important ethical issues at play here which cannot be diminished for the sake of personal utility.
You can read Dr. Halverson’s full commentary here, and Dr. Schwartz and Dr. Rager’s full commentary here.