This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Accountability for reasonableness is an ethical framework that describes the conditions of a fair decision-making process. It focuses on how decisions should be made and why these decisions are ethical. It was developed by Norman Daniels and James Sabin and is often applied in health policy and bioethics.^[1]

The concept of accountability for reasonableness emphasises that decision-making processes should be fair, transparent, and inclusive ^[2] when making decisions about the allocation of limited healthcare resources, such as funding for medical treatments, medical services, or health programs.

Accountability for reasonableness enables the education of all stakeholders regarding fair decision-making under resource constraints. This approach navigates a middle path between proponents of "explicit" and "implicit" rationing. It fosters social learning about limitations and establishes a link between healthcare institutional decisions and broader democratic deliberative processes. As it does not mandate pre-established rationing principles like implicit approaches, it requires transparent reasoning that all parties will eventually be able to acknowledge as relevant. ^[3]

The theory notes, to consider with accountability for reasonableness is to consider the following four conditions:^[4]

1. Relevance: The decision-making criteria and factors considered should be relevant to the goals and values of the affected stakeholders, such as patients, healthcare providers, and the community.
2. Publicity: The decision-making process should be transparent, and the reasons for the decisions made should be made publicly available. This helps ensure that the process is open to scrutiny and accountability.
3. Revisions and appeals: There should be a mechanism for challenging decisions and allowing for revisions or appeals. This enables stakeholders to question decisions that they believe are unjust or unreasonable.
4. Enforcement: There should be an enforcement mechanism to ensure that decisions are followed through and implemented as intended.

In healthcare, accountability for reasonableness has been used to develop guidelines for the fair allocation of scarce resources, such as organs for transplantation, ^[5] such as in consideration for renal replacement therapy. ^[6]

In education, accountability for reasonableness has been used to develop policies for the fair distribution of funding.^[7]

The theory has been criticised for poorly distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant grounds for making decisions^[4] and for being unclear on explaining how the theory improves fairness in healthcare.^[2]