Online research in philosophy

Life expectancy and health differ greatly between emerging and developed countries and within countries. Global dependence on fossil fuels contributes to health inequalities through air pollution, the geopolitics of scarce resources and probable climate change arising from global warming. Substituting for fossil fuels (C), hydrogen (H2), as vector and store of energy produced from low-carbon and/or renewable sources could reduce health inequalities by improving the environment. It is unlikely that the global market would initiate such a change. Nation-states would not act alone and would need to cooperate in leading it. Global recession might be the incentive that is needed to restructure a C-economy into an H2-economy. Yet, the transition would carry high costs, which would have to be borne by the developed countries in order to achieve a new treaty that included emerging countries. H2 for C is thus not only a technical fix, but also a global-ethical choice.

Children around the world suffer from poor health outcomes due to a lack of basic health and dental care, even in affluent countries. Yet duties exist to provide children these services when a society can afford to do so based on the importance of promoting (a) social utility, (b) autonomy and equality of opportunity, (c) children's well-being or best interest due to their vulnerability, and (d) compassion, sympathy, empathy and solidarity. In addition, (e) these considerations show that, in general, if competent adults should have access to federal- or state-funded health care goods, services, or benefits, then so should children. This argument has limitations; nonetheless, it can help identify systematic biases against children in federal- or state-supported health care programs and gain children access to better basic health and dental care.

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.

: The focus of questions of justice in health policy has shifted during the last 20 years, beginning with questions about rights to health care, and then, by the late 1980s, turning to issues of rationing. More recently, attention has focused on alternatives to cost-effectiveness analysis. In addition, health inequalities, and not just inequalities in access to health care, have become the subject of moral analysis. This article examines how such trends have transformed the philosophical landscape and encouraged some in bioethics to seek guidance on normative questions from outside of the contours of traditional philosophical arguments about justice.

This article attempts to map the broad ethical and legal contours of global child health realities. Its interest is in international duties to reduce disparities in the health of children. Specifically, it inquires into loci of collective rights and responsibilities in this context. Clarity on the sources of this responsibility and the nature of such rights will, it is hoped, contribute to enhanced and sustained action to attenuate these inequalities. A review and critique of the current topography of global health ethics is followed by an analysis of international human rights law as it pertains to global health, with a particular focus on the legal dimensions of child health outcomes. Thus grounded, the article seeks to build conceptual synergies between public health ethics and human rights paradigms to underwrite collective action on global child health disparities.

This article addresses the issue of women as primary caregivers to children and the concept of "maternal practice." The idea of maternal practice guides mothers as they learn (1) how to meet their child's physical, psychological, and spiritual needs, and (2) how to make their child socially acceptable. Hindrances to maternal practice include severe poverty and disabilities of the mother. The relationship between maternal practice and the quest for health care in the U.S. is discussed. Maintaining adequate health care is more difficult when parents are poorly educated and/or impoverished. Without proper health care, poor children are less likely to be able to compete with rich children in society. Dental care is also a concern, because proper dental care is fundamental in the maintenance of overall health. Dental care is not a "luxury" but medically necessary care. Solutions include increasing the awareness of such programs as CHIP and WIC, extending Medicaid benefits to more children, and compensating health care practitioners for working with Medicaid recipients. In addition, society must think more maternally and increase health and dental care accessibility, particularly to the poor in rural areas. The article concludes with the thought that if society expects mothers to care for their children, then society must care for mothers.

In this new book by the award-winning author of Just Healthcare, Norman Daniels develops a comprehensive theory of justice for health that answers three key questions: What is the special moral importance of health? When are health inequalities unjust? How can we meet health needs fairly when we cannot meet them all? The theory has implications for national and global health policy: Can we meet health needs fairly in aging societies? Or protect health in the workplace while respecting individual liberty? Or meet professional obligations and obligations of justice without conflict?

This paper reviews the work of several authors, D.W. Brock, D. Callahan, L. Churchill, L.M. Kopelman, R. Tong who consider assumptions and arguments about how to allocated health and dental care to children fairly. They use various approaches including feminist, rights based, and principled considerations, applying general notions of duty or justice to the issues of children's access to basic health and dental care. Two discuss these issues in relation to the work of David Hume. These authors consider children's greatest unmet health needs, including that of dental care, often mistakenly regarded as medically unimportant in terms of children's wellbeing, opportunities, and self-image. They review possible age bias against children in the allocation of health and dental care, the gap between what we say and do where children are concerned, and whether some fundamental shift in social thinking needs to occur.

: 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.

Health inequalities are of concern both becausestudying them may help one learn how to improvehealth and because health inequalities may beunjust. This paper argues that attending tothese reasons why health inequalities may beimportant undercuts the claims of researchersat the World Health Organization in favor offocusing on individual health variation ratherthan on social group health differences. Inequalities in individual health are of littleinterest unless one goes on to study how theyare related to other factors.