Online research in philosophy

Despite good intentions and decades of discussion addressing the need for transformative changes globally to reduce poverty and improve health equity, little progress has been made. A fundamental shift in framing the current conversation is critical to achieve “health for all,” moving away from the traditional approaches that use the more narrowly focused medical model, which is intent on treating and curing disease. A public health framework for action is needed, which recognizes and confronts the complex, and often-times difficult-to-achieve social determinants of health. A restructuring of global health policy development and implementation will be ineffective unless key areas are addressed including primary education and the environment, in addition to economic considerations. A public health framework that embraces a community-based participatory approach would provide a comprehensive platform for identifying critical components that impact health, and for developing effective strategies for change. A participatory approach would encourage dialogue and problem-solving for region-specific issues among those most affected by the broader health and social justice issues, with those who create policy.

Effectiveness, efficiency and equity in health care are discussed in this article against the background of concerns that cost containment may lead to reductions in quality of care. It is suggested that effectiveness is best seen from the patient's point of view and that it relates to more than simply improved health status. Efficiency and equity are better viewed from a societal stance.The paper discusses the role of the medical profession in effectiveness, efficiency and equity and argues that the role of medical doctors needs to be constrained.

The essay refers to a concern for social justice in the origins of public health, borne in part by religious commitments, and to more recent expressions of a similar concern in debates about health equity. Equity, moreover, is affected by discursive power relations (dominant/hegemonic versus local/suppressed), which are discussed in relation to current research in the African Religious Health Assets Programme on the interaction of particular 'healthworlds' (a conceptual innovation) that shape the choices and behaviour of health-seekers. Two background theoretical positions guide the argument: Amartya Sen's claim that development is linked to freedom (including religious freedom); and, building on Sen's and Martha Nussbaum's human capabilities theory, an asset-based community approach to the building or reconstruction of public health systems. On this basis, it is argued that health systems and health interventions are just to the extent that they mediate between the necessary leadership or polity from 'above' ( techné ) and the experience and wisdom ( métis ) of those who are 'below', taking into account the asymmetries of power that this equation represents. Because difference and diversity are so often expressed in what we might reasonably call 'religious' terms, I specifically emphasize the continuing persistence of religion and, hence, the importance of accounting for its pertinence in social theory generally, and in relation to discourses of health and justice in the African context specifically. Acknowledging the ambiguities of religion, I nevertheless argue that an appreciative alignment between public health systems and religious or faith-based initiatives in health promotion, prevention and care is crucial to sustainable and just health systems in Africa.

Equity in health and health care is animportant issue. It has been proposed that thepursuit of equity in health care is beinghampered by the dominance of individualism inhealth care practices. This paper explores theway in which communitarian ideals and practicesmight lend themselves to the pursuit of equity.Communitarians acknowledge, respect and fosterthe bonds that unite and identify communities.The paper argues that, to achieve equity inhealth care, these bonds need to be recognisedand harnessed rather than ignored. The notionof individual autonomy in the context of thecommunity is examined. Alternative concepts ofautonomy – social autonomy and communityautonomy – are seen to be more respectful andnurturing of both the individual and thecommunity. Moreover, these concepts appeardesirable for the pursuit of health care equitygoals. The paper concludes with some thoughtsabout how equity in Australia's health caresystem can reasonably progress within acommunitarian vision. Disadvantaged communitiesare discussed throughout, in particular,Australian Aboriginal communities.

It has become increasingly difficult to distinguish public health (and public health ethics) from tangentially related fields like social work. I argue that we should reclaim the more traditional conception of public health as the provision of health-related public goods. The public goods account has the advantage of establishing a relatively clear and distinctive mission for public health. It also allows a consensus of people with different comprehensive moral and political commitments to endorse public health measures, even if they disagree about precisely why they are desirable.

The aims of this paper are threefold. The first aim is to provide a critique of the reform proposal of the Harvard School of Public Health for Hong Kong's health care system through privatization of the public sector services. The second aim is to argue for the duty of society to guarantee every member equal access to a basic level of health care based on the values of equity, care and free choice. The third aim is to explore some suggestions about delivery structures and financial arrangements of a dual sector health care system which will better enable society to provide a basic level of health care that is sustainable and affordable, while being at the same time consistent with the values of care, equity and free choice.

Machine generated contents note: Preface; Introduction Angus Dawson; Part I. Concepts: 1. Resetting the parameters: public health as the foundation for public health ethics Angus Dawson; 2. Health, disease and the goal of public health Bengt Brülde; 3. Selective reproduction, eugenics and public health Stephen Wilkinson; 4. Risk and precaution Stephen John; Part II. Issues: 5. Smoking, health and ethics Richard Ashcroft; 6. Infectious disease control Marcel Verweij; 7. Population screening Ainsley Newson; 8. Vaccination ethics Angus Dawson; 9. Environment, ethics and public health: the climate change dilemma Anthony Kessel and Carolyn Stephens; 10. Public health research ethics: is non-exploitation the new principle for population-based research ethics? John McMillan; 11. Equity and population health: toward a broader bioethics agenda Norman Daniels; 12. Health inequities James Wilson; Index.

This paper introduces this mini-series on verticalequity in health care. It reflects on the fact that byand large equity policies in health care have failedand that there is a need for positive discriminationto promote equity better in future. This positivediscrimination is examined under the heading of`vertical equity'.The paper considers Varian's notion of `envy' as abasis for equity in health care but concludes thatthis is not a helpful route to go down. Better itwould seem to pursue the idea from Sen of `freedoms'and `communitarian claims' (as raised previously bythis author). While it is argued that proceduraljustice is to be preferred in the longer run as abasis for equity there are gains in adopting a shortrun goal of promoting distributive justice. Somepreliminary evidence is presented on the weighting ofhealth gains to reflect such vertical equityconcerns.

There is consistent and strong empirical evidence for social inequalities in health, as a vast and fast growing literature shows. In recent years, these findings have helped to move health equity high on international research and policy agendas. This paper examines how the empirical identification of social inequalities in health relates to a normative judgment about health inequities and puts forward an approach which embeds the pursuit of health equity within the general pursuit of social justice. It defends an indirect approach to health equity, which views social inequalities in health as unjust in so far as they are the result of an unjust basic structure of society in Rawls’ sense.