This article will examine the Catholic concept of global justice within a health care framework as it relates to women's needs for delivery doctors in the developing world and women's demands for assisted reproduction in the developed world. I will first discuss justice as a theory, situating it within Catholic social teachings. The Catholic perspective on global justice in health care demands that everyone have access to basic needs before elective treatments are offered (...) to the wealthy. After exploring specific discrepancies in global health care justice, I will point to the need for delivery doctors in the developing world to provide basic assistance to women who hazard many pregnancies as a priority before offering assisted reproduction to women in the developed world. The wide disparities between maternal health in the developing world and elective fertility treatments in the developed world are clearly unjust within Catholic social teachings. I conclude this article by offering policy suggestions for moving closer to health care justice via doctor distribution. (shrink)

There are four basic models for health care systems: the private market insurance model, the national single-payer model, the national health service model, and the social insuranceSocial insurance model. The social justice debate over health care usually focuses on the comparative efficiency and quality of competitive private market insurance and the universal coverage and equity of national health care systems. It is a mistake, however, to think that a universal right to (...) class='Hi'>health care services requires a single-payer, government-run, national health care system. The social insurance model of Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, deserves more attention, as it incorporates the strengths of both market models and national health care models. (shrink)

There are four basic models for health care systems: the private market insurance model, the national single-payer model, the national health service model, and the social insurance model. The social justice debate over health care usually focuses on the comparative efficiency and quality of competitive private market insurance and the universal coverage and equity of national health care systems. It is a mistake, however, to think that a universal right to health (...) care services requires a single-payer, government-run, national health care system. The social insurance model of Germany, France, Japan, and many other countries, deserves more attention, as it incorporates the strengths of both market models and national health care models. (shrink)

The factions debating health care reform in the United States have gravitated toward one of two positions: that just health care is an individual responsibility or that it must be regarded as a national concern. Both arguments overlook a third possibility: that justice in health care is multilayered and requires the participation of multiple and diverse communities. _Communities of Health Care Justice_ makes a powerful ethical argument for treating communities as critical (...) moral actors that play key roles in defining and upholding just health policy. Drawing together the key community dimensions of health care, and demonstrating their neglect in most prominent theories of health care justice, Charlene Galarneau postulates the ethical norms of community justice. In the process, she proposes that while the subnational communities of health care justice are defined by shared place, including those bound by culture, religion, gender, and race that together they define justice. As she constructs her innovative theorization of health care justice, Galarneau also reveals its firm grounding in the work of real-world health policy and community advocates. _Communities of Health Care Justice_ not only strives to imagine a new framework of just health care, but also to show how elements of this framework exist in current health policy, and to outline the systemic, conceptual, and structural changes required to put these justice norms into fuller practice. (shrink)

How should medical services be distributed within society? Who should pay for them? Is it right that large amounts should be spent on sophisticated technology and expensive operations, or would the resources be better employed in, for instance, less costly preventive measures? These and others are the questions addreses in this book. Norman Daniels examines some of the dilemmas thrown up by conflicting demands for medical attention, and goes on to advance a theory of justice in the distribution of (...) health care. The central argument is that health care, both preventive and acute, has a crucial effect on equality of opportunity, and that a principle guaranteeing equality of opportunity must underly the distribution of health-care services. Access to care, preventive measures, treatment of the elderly, and the obligations of doctors and medical administrations are fully discussed, and the theory is shown to underwrite various practical policies in the area. (shrink)

This chapter contains section titled: I Equality of Resources II Justice in Health Care III Why Universal Access Requires In‐kind Transfers IV Conclusion Acknowledgement.

Reviews the basic Catholic moral principles that apply to health care, then uses them to assess three major current trends in the health care industry.

In this book, an international group of philosophers, economists and theologians focus on the relationship between justice, luck and responsibility in health care. Together, they offer a thorough reflection on questions such as: How should we understand justice in health care? Why are health care interests so important that they deserve special protection? How should we value health? What are its functions and do these make it different from other goods? Furthermore, (...) how much equality should there be? Which inequalities in health and health care are unfair and which are simply unfortunate? Which matters of health care belong to the domain of justice, and which to the domain of charity? And to what extent should we allow personal responsibility to play a role in allocating health care services and resources, or in distributing the costs? With this book, the editors meet a double objective. First, they provide a comprehensive philosophical framework for understanding the concepts of justice, luck and responsibility in contemporary health care; and secondly, they explore whether these concepts have practical force to guide normative discussions in specific contexts of health care such as prevention of infectious diseases or in matters of reproductive technology. Particular and extensive attention is paid to issues regarding end-of-life care. (shrink)

We often speak of health care as a social good. What kind of good it is-and what of us in making it available to the members of society-depends on how society underst value of health care may be understood in many different ways within society.

This article tries to analyze the meaning and relevance of the concept of solidarity as compared to the concept of justice. While ‘justice’ refers to rights and duties , the concept of solidarity refers to relations of personal commitment and recognition . The article wants to answer the question whether solidarity and liberal justice should be seen as mutually exclusive or whether both approaches should be regarded as complementary to each other. The paper starts with an analysis (...) of liberal theories of justice which are followed by an analysis of the descriptive and a moral understanding of the concept of solidarity. The importance of solidarity lies in its relational aspects, particularly its emphasis on cooperation and commonality. The paper argues that while solidarity is more fundamental than justice, both concepts are important for the arrangement of health care practices. The paper gives special attention to the concept of decent care, reflective solidarity and humanitarian solidarity which is seen as fundamental for all health care policies and care practices. (shrink)

This paper argues that societal duties of health promotion are underwritten (at least in large part) by a principle of beneficence. Further, this principle generates duties of justice that correlate with rights, not merely “imperfect” duties of charity or generosity. To support this argument, I draw on a useful distinction from bioethics and on a somewhat neglected approach to social obligation from political philosophy. The distinction is that between general and specific beneficence; and the approach from political philosophy (...) has at times been called equality of concern. After clarifying the distinction and setting out the basis of the equality of concern view, I argue that the result is a justice-based principle of “specific” beneficence that should be reflected in a society’s health policy. I then draw on this account to criticize, refine, and extend some prominent health care policy proposals from the bioethics literature. (shrink)

Response to Emily A. Largent, Franklin G. Miller and Steven Joffe, A Prescription for Ethical Learning, Hastings Center Report, 43, s1, (S28-S29), (2013).

This paper is essentially concerned with defending the idea of a universal right to adequate health care coverage. It will argue for the existence of a human right grounded in Catholic social thought. At the outset, a statement of clarification is needed. This paper does not pretend to offer the panacea for all ills relating to health care provision. Rather, it is an inquiry into the kinds of value that should inform decision making relating to (...) class='Hi'>health policy. A universal right to adequate health care cannot be established without questioning the underlying values that inform the debate and bring them firmly to the level of deliberative consciousness. It is these value concerns that structure the dynamic of health care provision and the general provision of wider resources in society. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

This paper compares and contrasts three different substantive principles of justice for making health care priority-setting or “rationing” decisions: need principles, maximising principles and egalitarian principles. The principles are compared by tracing out their implications for a hypothetical rationing decision involving four identified patients. This decision has been the subject of an empirical study of public opinion based on small-group discussions, which found that the public seem to support a pluralistic combination of all three kinds of rationing (...) principle. In conclusion, it is suggested that there is room for further work by philosophers and others on the development of a coherent and pluralistic theory of health care rationing which accords with public opinions. (shrink)

Many societies, and nearly all wealthy, developed countries, provide universal access to a broad range of public health and personal medical services. Is such access to health care a requirement of social justice, or is it simply a matter of social policy that some countries adopt and others do not? If it is a requirement of social justice, we should be clear about what kinds of care we owe people and how we determine what (...) care is owed if we cannot possibly meet every health need, as arguably no society can. We should be clear about what constitutes appropriate access to that care, given that there are diverse barriers to access. We must also be able to say why we owe these things as a matter of justice, and, of course, different accounts of social justice will bake and serve this cake in different ways. (shrink)

In this article, we develop a non-rights-based argument based on beneficence (i.e., the welfare of individuals and communities) and justice as the disposition to act justly to promote equity in health care resource allocation. To this end, we structured our analysis according to the following main sections. The first section examines the work of Amartya Sen and his equality of capabilities approach and outlines a framework of health care as a fundamental human need. In the (...) subsequent section, we provide a definition of health equity based on the moral imperative to guarantee that every individual ought to have the freedom to pursue health goals and well-being. In the later part of the article, we outline a non-right approach to health care based on three pillars: (1) human flourishing, (2) justice as a disposition not a process, and (3) solidarity. (shrink)

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.; The DeChristianization of Christian Health Care Institutions, or, How the Pursuit of Social Justice and Excellence can Obscure the.

This paper will examine the topic of identity in Roman Catholicism from the perspective of topics contained in or absent from mission statements of 25 Catholic health care institutions. In particular, I will look at these from the perspective of social justice as well as how this and other topics such as human dignity, the sanctity of life, stewardship, pastoral care and the likelihood of mergers with other institutions will affect the healing ministry of Catholic (...) class='Hi'>health care providers. The article will conclude that there are three key dimensions to Catholic health care: leadership in advocating reform of the current health care system, care for the marginalized and under-insured, and the provision of pastoral care in all institutions. (shrink)

Among the myriad longstanding political, socioeconomic, and moral debates focused on the fair distribution of health-care resources within the United States, those addressing intergenerational justice tend to produce the most heat and, often, the least amount of light. The familiar narratives tend to be binary ones of opposing generational stakeholders. While a great number of proposed solutions focus on reconfiguring rationing priorities, this paper will instead shift the discourse to intergenerational interdependence, suggesting that these conflict-born moral dilemmas (...) are in important ways false. The alternative view of intergenerational relations defended here is grounded in an interdependent, rather an oppositional, model of human relationships. I argue that this interdependence can best be realized through a deliberate movement toward intergenerational narrative understandings, as well as through physical proximities. I conclude by considering several ongoing intergenerational projects directed at just such a goal. (shrink)

Many countries have not considered palliative care a public health problem. With limited resources, disease-oriented therapies and prevention measures take priority. In this paper, I intend to describe the moral framework for considering palliative care as a public health priority in resource-poor countries. A distributive theory of justice for health care should consider integrative palliative care as morally required as it contributes to improving normal functioning and preserving opportunities for the individual. For (...) patients requiring terminal care , we are guided less by principles of justice and more by the duty to relieve suffering and society's commitment to protecting the professional's obligation to uphold principles of beneficence, compassion and non-abandonment. A fair deliberation process is necessary to allow these strong moral commitments to serve as reasons when setting priorities in resource poor countries. (shrink)

An ‘ideal’ health care system would be unencumbered by economic considerations and provide an ample supply of well-paid health care professionals who would supply culturally appropriate optimal health care to the level desired by patients. An ‘ideal’ health care system presupposes an ‘ideal’ society in which resources for all social goods are unlimited. Changes within health care systems occur both because of changes within the system and because of changes or (...) demands in and by the ‘exterior environment’. Social systems must be in a homeostatic balance. If one component fails to accommodate itself to other forces, needs and interests within the system, the system is imperiled. It is difficult to create a just health care system in an unjust society, just as it is difficult to practise truly ethical medicine in an ethically corrupt system. (shrink)

This work offers a philosophical appraisal of accounts of social justice in health care. By analyzing and comparing seven different accounts, it shows what is involved in advancing such an account and discloses what is involved in providing a moral justification, identifying a tripartite interplay among moral accounts, theories, and perspectives regarding the proper allocation of health care. Based on a distinction between substantive and procedural accounts of justice in health care allocation, (...) it concludes that the prospect of agreement regarding substantive accounts of health care justice is unlikely. This study illustrates that it is moral perspectives, rather than moral theories, that are foundational to accounts of justice in health care. A moral perspective includes the complete content of a morality lived by a group of people, while a moral theory identifies general statements formulatable within a moral perspective, a moral account restructures in a systematic way a moral perspective regarding a domain of issues, such as that of justice in health care. Although a moral theory contributes to an account a general framework that arranges moral commitments into a discursive system, only a full-bodied moral perspective can provide a moral account the substance that it needs. Through closely looking at various moral perspectives embodied by different accounts of just health care, it becomes clear that disagreements in morality are extensive and deep. It is impossible to justify a particular substantive account of just health care without begging the question. Finally, a theoretical reconstruction of Singapore's Confucian moral perspective regarding health care justice is provided so as to offer a picture of a quite different theoretical foundation as well as a substantively different moral perspective from those that are often taken for granted in the West. It shows that moral perspectives are different from people to people, from community to community. A successful account of just health care will thus require more than what can be drawn from theories of justice. (shrink)

Review of Norman Daniels' 'Am I My Parents' Keeper?', and Daniel Callahan's 'Setting Limits'.

This book brings together ten influential essays on justice and healthcare, written by a major figure in bioethics and political philosophy. What emerges is a systematic and unified approach to the issues that challenges widely-held dogmas and unsettles the framing assumptions of a number of prominent debates. Unlike most work in bioethics, this book takes the problem of implementing justice seriously, exploring the relationship between institutions, incentives, and moral commitments.

An ‘ideal’ health care system would be unencumbered by economic considerations and provide an ample supply of well-paid health care professionals who would supply culturally appropriate optimal health care to the level desired by patients. An ‘ideal’ health care system presupposes an ‘ideal’ society in which resources for all social goods are unlimited. Changes within health care systems occur both because of changes within the system and because of changes or (...) demands in and by the ‘exterior environment’. Social systems must be in a homeostatic balance. If one component fails to accommodate itself to other forces, needs and interests within the system, the system is imperiled. It is difficult to create a just health care system in an unjust society, just as it is difficult to practise truly ethical medicine in an ethically corrupt system. (shrink)

Catholic health care is one of the key places where the church lives Catholic social teaching (CST). Yet the individualistic methodology of Catholic bioethics inherited from the manualist tradition has yet to incorporate this critical component of the Catholic moral tradition. Informed by the places where Catholic health care intersects with the diverse societal injustices embodied in the patients it encounters, this book brings the lens of CST to bear on Catholic health care, illuminating (...) a new spectrum of ethical issues and practical recommendations from social determinants of health, immigration, diversity and disparities, behavioral health, gender-questioning patients, and environmental and global health issues. (shrink)

This paper firstly distinguishes between principles of “global justice” that apply the same anywhere and everywhere – Tännsjö’s utilitarianism, egalitarianism, prioritarianism and such like – and principles of “local justice” that apply within the specific sphere of health-care. Sometimes the latter might just be a special case of the former – but not always. Secondly, it discusses reasons, many psychological in nature, why physicians might devote excessive resources to prolonging life pointlessly, showing once again that those (...) reasons might themselves be morally significant. (shrink)

This paper explores the implications of Roman Catholic teachings on social justice and rights to health care. It argues that contemporary societies, such as those in North America and Western Europe, have an obligation to provide health care to their citizens as a matter of right. Moral considerations provide a basis for evaluating concerns about the role of equality when determining health care entitlements and giving some precision to the widespread belief that the (...) right to health care requires equal entitlement to health care benefits. (shrink)

The issues before the Supreme Court, arising as they did out of multiple cases and divergent appellate court rulings, were quite complex, and its final decision will be parsed rather differently by lawyers, health policy wonks, and economists (or metaphysical philosophers, in Chief Justice John Roberts's memorable phrase). This essay will focus on one singular element: did the final ruling enhance or detract from our collective power to exercise stewardship over our health care resources? -/- Clearly (...) Americans diverge on key features of a desirable society and on the wisdom of using government to achieve even mutually desirable goals. But before politics settles the fate of the Affordable Care Act (and perhaps also the federal role in health policy for the foreseeable future), we should focus on what the Court has allowed us to consider: if we want it to, federal power may constitutionally be marshalled to compel insurers to end discrimination against the sick and to offer more transparent products so the marketplace will better serve consumers. (shrink)

Introduction for Symposium on Intergenerational Justice in Health Care.

The Greater Cleveland community Dialogue on values and Health Care most recently took up the questions of health care rationing and of access to long-term care. The Dialogue, funded by the Cleveland Foundation, involves a Core Group of thirty community leaders representing major interest groups, joined together in an attempt to build consensus or acceptable compromise. The purpose of the dialogue is to identify moral values that can provide signposts for public policy regarding health (...) care distribution. (shrink)

This new text offers the perspectives necessary for a comprehensive and objective critique of the health care establishment. By including diverse perspectives, students obtain a more accurate sense of the issues and the ethical considerations in a pluralistic society that values justice in its health systems.

Two answers to the question ‘how can we allocate health care resources fairly?’ are introduced and discussed. Both utilitarian and egalitarian approaches are found relevant, but both exhibit considerable theoretical and practical difficulties. Neither seems capable of solving the problem on its own. It is suggested that, for practical purposes, a version of Rawls' famous thought experiment might provide at least some enlightenment about which theoretical approach should be used to address the question.

In this discussion, we will consider arguments against the view that one person is entitled to medical care at the expense of another person, just because the one person might be able to extend it to the other. We all accept the view that we are entitled to nonviolence from each other, which in the medical case is roughly that we are entitled to other people not making us sick, at least insofar as this is something they can readily (...) avoid. But how are we also entitled to their help in making us well when we are sick? Few of us think that we are entitled to other people's new cars, or half of their incomes for our general use. Why, then, are we entitled to a hefty fraction of that income to pay our medical bills? (shrink)

Justice and Health Care: Selected Essays collects, in a systematic but non-chronological fashion, ten of Buchanan’s most significant essays on justice and health care, written over a period of almost three decades. As the Obama administration continues to struggle to implement much-needed comprehensive health care reform in the hopes of controlling rising health care costs and extending affordable health care to over 46 million uninsured Americans, there could hardly (...) be a more appropriate time to read Buchanan’s selected essays. (shrink)

There is a growing consensus in the United States that all is not well with our health care delivery system and that something, perhaps something drastic, needs to be done about it.

During the last decade a “technical” approach has become increasingly influential in health care priority setting. The various country reports illustrate, however, that non-technical considerations cannot be avoided. As they often remain implicit in health care package decisions, this paper aims to make these normative judgements an explicit part of the procedure. More specifically, it aims to integrate different models of distributive justice as well as the principle of solidarity in four different phases of a (...) decision-making procedure, and to identify important moral choices which present themselves. First four important justice models are discussed, then a justification is given for their inclusion in a four-step decision making procedure. This is followed by a discussion of different justice and solidarity problems—with their inherent conceptual difficulties in each of these stages. The paper concludes with a summary of the major moral choices that are to be made in health care package decisions. (shrink)

Miss Telfer offers a new analysis, classifying health care into four systems, only one of which, the 'laissez-faire' type, is unlikely to be acceptable today. The other three systems are defined here as 'liberal humanitarian', 'liberal socialist' and 'pure socialist'. Each is analysed for its content and for the views of its protagonists and antagonists. On these issues no dogma is proclaimed as the author says she has sought to 'bring out some of the principles at issue in (...) any discussion of the rights and wrongs of socialized medicine'. This journal is surely the proper place for such a discussion as the worlds of the politician, of the economist, of the doctor and of the patient come to a point in the philosophies behind the aspect of medical ethics exemplified in the provision of medical services by the state. Miss Telfer also glances down the byways of the medicine of the market place. (shrink)

Edmund Pellegrino has pioneered work in medical ethics calling for a reconstruction of Hippocratic ethics. In particular, he has spoken of incorporating principles that concern justice and the common good. This article traces his commitment to the common good, concern for the poor, opposition to libertarianism, acknowledgement of the necessity of rationing, and reluctance to give clinicians social allocational tasks. It asks how Pellegrino relates distributive justice to the common good. Drawing on his theory relating autonomy to patient-centered (...) beneficence (in which autonomy is one element of the good rather than a side constraint on the good), the author argues that Pellegrino appears to make justice one element of the common good rather than a distributional moral constraint on promoting the good. He suggests that Pellegrino stands in three consequentialist or teleological moral traditions: professional physician ethics, Aristotelianism, and Catholic moral theology, but that there are the makings of a more independent, more egalitarian theory of justice in his writings. Keywords: autonomy, common good, consequentialism, Edmund Pellegrino, justice CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

The prelims comprise: Introduction Chronic Illness and Disability Acute and Chronic Illness: Health Care's Goals The Population Adaptive Values Personal and Public Perspectives Worthy Lives Conclusion Notes.

Recent policy debates in the US over access to mental health care have raised several philosophically complex ethical and conceptual issues. The defeat of mental health parity legislation in the US Congress has brought new urgency and relevance to theoretical and empirical investigations into the nature of mental illness and its relation to other forms of sickness and disability. Manifold, nebulous, and often competing conceptions of mental illness make the creation of coherent public policy exceedingly difficult. Referencing (...) a variety of approaches to ethical reflection on health care, and drawing from the empirical literature on therapeutic efficacy and economic efficiency, we argue that differential rationing, ‘disparity,’ is unjustifiable. (shrink)