Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paper one: The distinction between prospective and retrospective responsibility

  • Discussion
  • Responsibilities And Rationalities: Should The Patient Be Blamed?
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Nota 2000. Over de ontwikkeling van gezondheidsbeleid: feiten, beschouwingen — beleidsvoornemens. (1986). Staatsuitgeverij, Den Haag, 10.

  2. Lalonde, M. (1974).A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians, Ottawa, Government of Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leeuw, E. de. (1989).The Sane Revolution. Health Promotion: Backgrounds, Scope, Purpose, Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rouwenhorst, W. (1981).Om onze gezondheid: de rol van gezondheidsvoorlichting en—opvoeding, Samson, Alphen aan den Rijn.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Nordenfelt, L. (1987).On the Nature of Health. An Action-Theoretic Approach, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Green, L. W., Kreuter, M. W., Deeds, S. G. and Partridge, K. B. (1980).Health Education Planning. A Diagnostic Approach, Mayfield, Palo Alto, California.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kok, G. J. (1986).Gezondheidsmotivering. GVO als wetenschapsgebied, Rede Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Agich, G. J. (1982). The concept of responsibility in medicine. In,Responsibility in Health Care, ed. by G. J. Agich, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frankena, W. K. (1973).Ethics, Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beaufort, I. D. de. (1991). Eigen schuld, dikke bult: een pijnlijke kwestie? In,Kiezen en delen. Achtergrondstudies in opdracht van de commissie Keuzen in de zorg, DOP, Den Haag6, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Have, H. A. M. J. ten. (1987). Ethische aspecten van GVO. In,Gezondheidsvoorlichting en—Opvoeding. Van analyse tot effecten, ed. by V. Damoiseaux, F. M. Gerards, G. J. Kok and F. Nijhuis, Van Gorcum, Assen/Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Have, H. A. M. J. ten. (1993). Ethiek. In,Gezondheidsvoorlichting en gedragsverandering, ed. by V. Damoiseaux, H. T. van der Molen and G. J. Kok, Van Gorcum/Open Universiteit, Assen/Heerlen.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ethics, Philosophy and History of Medicine, School of Medical Sciences, Catholic University of Niimegen, Postbox 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Henk ten Have

Authors
  1. Henk ten Have
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

ten Have, H. Paper one: The distinction between prospective and retrospective responsibility. Health Care Anal 2, 119–123 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249733

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02249733

Keywords

Search

Navigation