Online research in philosophy

Departing from theories of distributive justice and their relation with the distribution of health care within society, especially egalitarianism and libertarianism, this paper aims at demonstrating that the approach taken by the European Court of Justice regarding the application of the Internal Market principles (or the market freedoms) to the field of health care services has introduced new values which are more concerned with a libertarian view of health care. Moreover, the paper also addresses the question of how these new values introduced by the Court may affect common principles of European health systems, such as equity and accessibility.

In this paper I argue that the metaphysical ethics of Emmanuel Levinas captures some essential moral intuitions that are central to health care. However, there is an ongoing discussion about the relevance of ethical metaphysics for normative ethics and in particular on the question of the relationship between justice and individualized care. In this paper I take part in this debate and I argue that Levinas' idea of an ethics of the Other that guides politics and justice can shed important light on issues that are central to priorities in health care. In fact, the ethics of Levinas in seeking the foundation of normativity itself, captures the ethical coreand central values of health care.

The language of rights is increasingly used to regulate access to health care and allocation of resources in the health care field. The right to health has been grounded on different theories of justice. Scholars within the liberal tradition have grounded the right to health care on Rawls's two principles of justice. Thus, the right to health care has been justified as being one of the basic liberties, as enabling equality of opportunity, or as being justified by the maximin principle. In this article, Filc analyzes—from a radical egalitarian standpoint—the limitations of the different attempts to ground an equal right to health on Rawls's theory of justice and offers a first approximation to a radical egalitarian formulation of the right to health.

This easy challenges the view that the provision of health care must take place within a competitive-free system. The author argues that, presuming that there is a requirement to meet the demands of those who cannot pay for health care, a competitive market provides a good way to deal with injustices within the health care system. The author concludes that the demands for justice are best met when indigent individuals use some portion of the funds they receive from the government to purchase one of the many competing forms of health care. This scheme requires a competitive market in the delivery of health care. Keywords: justice, competition, for-profit medicine CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

: In addressing issues of access to health care and rationing, Jewish and Roman Catholic writers identify similar guiding values and specific concerns. Moral thinkers in each tradition tend to support the guarantee of universal access to at least a basic level of health care for all members of society, based on such values as human dignity, justice, and healing. Catholic writers are more likely to frame their arguments in terms of the common good and to be more accepting of rationing that denies beneficial and needed health care to some persons. Jewish writers are more likely to consider individual responsibility for illness in allocation decisions and to accept differences in the health care that different members of society receive. The article considers the relevance of both shared and complementary perspectives for deliberations in nations such as the United States.

: According to Jewish law, there is a clear obligation to try to heal, and this duty devolves upon both the physician and the society. Jewish sources make it clear that health care is not only an individual and familial responsibility, but also a communal one. This social aspect of health care manifests itself in Jewish law in two ways: first, no community is complete until it has the personnel (and, one assumes, the facilities) to provide health care; second, the community must pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it as part of its provision for the poor. The community, in turn, must use its resources wisely, which is the moral basis within the Jewish tradition for some system of managed care. The community must balance its commitment to provide health care with the provision of other services.

: Bioethics has focused principally on ethical issues arising in clinical medicine. When it has addressed justice or equity, it has focused on access to health care and on defending a general moral right to health care. This dual focus on establishing a right to health care and on health care rather than health has left bioethics largely silent on two issues of fundamental importance for a full account of justice and health. First, the focus on establishing a right to health care has contributed to a failure to address difficult issues in developing ethical standards for equitably prioritizing limited resources in health care. Second, the focus on inequalities in access to health care has ignored the much greater impact of social determinants of health, in particular socioeconomic class and inequality, on health and health inequalities. Bioethics must broaden its agenda.

Menzel and Light have argued that the conservative principle of self-sufficiency gives good reasons to strive for universal health coverage. This paper gives further reasons for connecting universal health care with self-sufficiency and continues Menzel’s and Light’s project in four more ways. First, a more extended analysis of a conservative conception of government shows how a general opposition to welfare programs is consistent with guaranteeing universal basic health care. Second, common fears about the abuse of health care when universal access is guaranteed are unfounded. Third, worldwide experience shows that the most effective way to bring high quality health care to a population is through a government mandate, not the free market. Fourth, while socioeconomic status is an important determinant of health independent of the accessibility of health care itself, this does not undermine the case for universal health care based on a minimal, conservative conception of equality of opportunity.

This paper will explore the application of an account of justice in health and health care to the special case of children. It is tempting to hold that children require no special treatment in an account of just health care; justice requires guaranteeing access to at least basic health care services to all persons, whatever their age group, within the constraints of a society's resources. However, I will argue that for a number of reasons we need to address what justice requires specifically for children from the health care system, even if the answer must be embedded within a general account of justice in health and health care.

This paper considers whether Rawls' theory of justice as fairness may be used to justify a human right to health care. Though Rawls himself does not discuss health care, other writers have applied Rawls' theory to the provision of health care. Ronald Green argues that contractors in the original position would establish a basic right to health care. Green's proposal, however, requires considerable relaxation of the constraints Rawls places on the original position and thus jeopardizes Rawls' arguments for the two principles of justice. Norman Daniels claims that health care is best understood as a means for helping to achieve Rawls' goal of equality of fair opportunity. Daniels acknowledges, however, that his interpretation cannot justify a basic right to health care; rather, it would at best require that certain kinds of care be made available to certain kinds of individuals. Finally, in place of the notion of health care is a human right, it is suggested that the provision of health care is a social ideal which may inspire the creation of specific legal rights. On this view, social provision of health care may properly vary significantly from culture to culture. Despite this variability, social systems may still be criticized on moral grounds. Keywords: justice, right to health care, equality, fair opportunity CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?