Priority setting in medicine is generally regarded as an appropriate means for preparing just allocation of medical resources. By involving the general public or affected stakeholders in priority setting, advocates hope to legitimise this process and increase the acceptability of future decisions on resource allocation. Here, we differentiate between two ideal-typical methods of stakeholder involvement: 1) qualitative and 2) quantitative ones. We argue that the level of information of participants is important to the quality of the outcome of participatory events. Qualitative methods aim at fostering deliberative discussions among well-informed stakeholders. By contrast, quantitative methods usually do not have the capacity to ensure or, at least, control the level of information that participants use to guide their decisions. Hence, we conclude that in the context of priority setting qualitative and especially deliberative methods are preferable to quantitative approaches.