Originally published in 1986. All students of social science must confront a number of important philosophical issues. This introduction to the philosophy of the social sciences provides coherent answers to questions about empiricism, explanation and rationality. It evaluates contemporary writings on the subject which can be as difficult as they are important to understand. Each chapter has an annotated bibliography to enable students to pursue the issues raised and to assess for themselves the arguments of the authors.

It has become fashionable to question attempts to derive internationally agreed duties of clinical care from more general theories of human rights. For example, some argue that such attempts risk moral abstraction through their neglect for the importance of culture and community in shaping moral consciousness and are thus often unhelpful in the resolution of concrete moral dilemmas within medicine. Others denounce the importance of general moral principles altogether in bioethics and attempt to articulate what are claimed to be more (...) practical approaches to resolving moral conflict. This paper challenges such arguments. It does so through arguing that: i) all humans everywhere have the same basic human needs; ii) the satisfaction of these needs varies with culture; iii) the imputation of moral duties on others entails respect for their right to basic need satisfaction, including the right to choose between cultures; iv) internationally accepted clinical duties of care embrace presumptions about the duties and rights of patients which follow from these more general principles and v) problems of moral indeterminacy that arise from putting these principles into practice can be resolved through associated procedural policies of rational negotiation and compromise. The moral importance and practicality of respect for individual human rights within the practice of medicine is thus defended. Indeed, the paper concludes by arguing that without belief in human rights linked to a theory of basic human needs, communitarian theories of morality are incoherent. (shrink)

Last year (1998) saw the celebration of the 50th Anniversaryof the British National Health Service (NHS). One ofthe few completely nationalised systems of health carein the world, the NHS is seen by many as a moralbeacon of what it means to provide equitable medicaltreatment to all citizens on the basis of need andneed alone. However, others argue that it has failedto achieve the overall goals for which it was created.Because of scarce resources, some urgently needed careis not available at all, (...) while that which is receivedis sometimes second class. For these reasons, it isclaimed that the NHS should be scrapped and replacedby other systems of health care delivery.This paper outlines the history of the NHS,indicating some of the problems and innovations whichhave led to its current organization and structure.The philosophical foundations of the NHS are then articulated and defended on the grounds that it stillrepresents a morally coherent and economicallyefficient approach to the delivery of health care.Scarce resources are the key problem facing the NHS,making rationing inevitable and it is shown thatthis is not incompatible with the moral foundations ofthe service. However, there can be little doubt thatthe NHS is now becoming dangerously under-funded. Thepaper concludes with arguments about why this is soand what might be done about it. (shrink)