Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (3):301-311 (2009)

This article defends the public funding of abortion in the Canadian health care system in light of objections by opponents of abortion that the procedure should be denied public funding. Abortion opponents point out that women terminate their pregnancies most often for social reasons, that the Canadian health care system only requires funding for medically necessary procedures, and that abortion for social reasons is not medically necessary care. I offer two lines of response. First, I briefly present an argument that characterizes abortion sought for social reasons as medically necessary care, directly contesting the anti-abortion position. Second, and more substantially, I present a justice argument that shows that even if abortion is not regarded as medically necessary care, the reasons that typically motivate women to seek abortion are sufficiently weighty from the moral perspective that it would be unjust to deny them public funding. I finish by drawing the more general conclusion that health care funding decisions should be guided by a broader concept of necessary care, rather than by a narrow concept of specifically medical necessity. A broad concept of necessary care has been debated in health care policy in the Netherlands, and I suggest that such a concept would be a more just and defensible guide for funding decisions than the concept of medical necessity
Keywords Abortion  Canada Health Act  Justice  Medical necessity  Necessary care  Well being
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11019-008-9164-9
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,683
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Women and Human Development.Martha C. Nussbaum - 2003 - Mind 112 (446):372-375.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The right to assistive technology.Joseph A. Stramondo - 2020 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 41 (5):247-271.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Improving Abortion Access in Canada.Chris Kaposy - 2010 - Health Care Analysis 18 (1):17-34.
Health Care Reform and Abortion: A Catholic Moral Perspective.James T. McHugh - 1994 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (5):491-500.
Funding, Objectivity and the Socialization of Medical Research.James Robert Brown - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3):295--308.
Abortion, Society, and the Law. Edited by David F. Walbert & J. Douglas Butler.David F. Walbert - 1973 - Cleveland [Ohio]Press of Case Western Reserve University.
The Moral Significance of Spontaneous Abortion.T. F. Murphy - 1985 - Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (2):79-83.
Setting Priorities in the Spanish Health Care System.Q. Quintana & A. Infante - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (6):595-606.
Community, Public Health and Resource Allocation.T. M. Wilkinson - 2010 - Public Health Ethics 3 (3):267-271.
Will Embryonic Stem Cells Change Health Policy?William M. Sage - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (2):342-351.
Equity and Public Health Care in China.Ren-Zong Qiu - 1989 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (3):283-287.


Added to PP index

Total views
25 ( #443,740 of 2,462,435 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,313 of 2,462,435 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes