In a previous essay I criticized Engelhardt's libertarian conception of justice, which grounds the view that society's obligation to assure access to adequate health care for all is a matter of beneficence .
Beneficence fails to capture the moral stringency associated with many claims for access to health care. In the present paper I argue that these claims are really matters of justice proper, where justice is conceived along moderate egalitarian lines, such as those suggested by Rawls and Daniels, rather than strong egalitarian lines. Further, given the empirical complexity associated with the distribution of contemporary health care, I argue that what we really need to address the relevant policy issues adequately is a theory of health care justice, as opposed to an all-purpose conception of justice. Daniels has made an important start toward that goal, though there are some large policy areas which I discuss that his account of health care justice does not really speak to. Finally, practical matters of health care justice really need to be addressed in a ‘non-ideal’ mode, a framework in which philosophers have done little.
Key wordsegalitarian justice fair equality of opportunity health care justice non-ideal justice
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Fleck LM. Just health care (I): is beneficence enough? Theor Med 1989; 10:167–82.Google Scholar
- 2.President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Securing Access to Health Care. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1983.Google Scholar
- 3.Daniels N. Just Health Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
- 4.Engelhardt HT Jr. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
- 5.Brown L. The scope and limits of equality as a normative guide to federal health care policy. Public Policy 1978; 26:481–532.Google Scholar
- 6.Rawls J. Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1985; 14:223–51.Google Scholar
- 7.Green D. Health care and justice in contract theory perspective. In: Veatch R, Branson R, eds. Ethics and Health Policy. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976:111–26.Google Scholar
- 8.Fried C. Right and Wrong. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
- 9.Calabresi G, Bobbitt P. Tragic Choices. New York: WW Norton, 1978.Google Scholar
- 10.Blumstein J. Rationing medical resources: a constitutional, legal, and policy analysis. In: President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Securing Access to Health Care. Vol 3. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 1983:349–94.Google Scholar
- 11.Lomasky L. Medical progress and national health care. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1981; 10:65–88.Google Scholar
- 12.Fleck LM. DRGs: justice and the invisible rationing of health care resources. J Med Philos 1987; 12:165–96.Google Scholar
- 13.Rawls J. Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy 1980; 72:515–72.Google Scholar
- 14.Lubeck D., Bunker J. Case Study 9: The Artificial Heart: Costs, Risks, and Benefits. Washington DC: Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assessment, 1982Google Scholar
- 15.Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
- 16.Daniels N. Wide reflective equilibrium and theory acceptance in ethics. The Journal of Philosophy 1979; 76:256–82.Google Scholar
- 17.Daniels N Reflective equilibrium and Archimedean points. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1980; 10:83–103.Google Scholar