Abstract
This paper is in three parts. In Part One we briefly explain that an unsophisticated form of utilitarianism—economic rationalism (ER)—has become dominant in many health systems. Its proponents argue that one of ER’s most important effects is to increase consumer choice. However, evidence from New Zealand does not support this claim. Furthermore, the logic of ER requires the construction of systems which tend to restrict individual participation.
In Part Two we argue that although some have advocated an ‘ethic of care’ in an attempt to counteract ER’s utilitarianism, two decades of campaigning have had little influence on health policy. ER’s pro-care adversaries have failed to make an impact because they have not developed a taxonomy of care—they have not established a language compatible with, or as powerful as, ER’s.
In Part Three, in an attempt to raise the conceptual and practical status of caring in contemporary health systems, we distinguish four different forms of care. In opposition to those who believe the ‘ethic of care’ can adequately direct health care practice, we demonstrate that care is a secondary notion. We show that in order for a carer to decide which form of care to adopt in different situations she requires a more powerful idea. We contend further that health care ought to be governed by a theory of health, and suggest that ‘the foundations theory of health’ should be adopted by planners searching for a more humane alternative to ER. We conclude that ER’s dominance can and must be challenged. However, only those arguments which offer detailed theoretical analyses of health care, as well as meticulously derived practical policies, have any chance of success.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Health Care Analysis passim.
Salmond, G., Mooney, G. and Laugesen, M. (1994). Introduction to health care reform in New Zealand.Health Policy 29, 1–3.
Cumming, J. (1994). Core services and priority setting: the New Zealand experience.Health Policy 29, 41–60.
Coney, S. (1997). Open letter to the uninformed: managed care means damaged ethics.Health Care Analysis 5(3), 252–258.
Ashton, T. (1995). From evolution to revolution: health reform in New Zealand. In,Reforming Health Care: The Philosophy and Practice of International Health Reform, ed. by D. Seedhouse, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Fisher, R. (1995). Panel presentation,Ethics: The Healthcare Conscience, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, May 1995.
Seedhouse, D. (1994)Fortress NHS: A Philosophical Review of the National Health Service, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Watson, J. (1989). Human caring and suffering: a subjective model for health sciences. In,They Shall Not Hurt: Human Suffering and Human Caring, ed. by R. Taylor and J. Watson, Colorado Associated University Press.
Taylor, R. and Watson, J. (1989).They Shall Not Hurt: Human Suffering and Human Caring, Colorado Associated University Press.
Reed, J. (1994). Two paradoxes of caring: a response to Gorovitz.Health Care Analysis 2(3), 217–220.
Allmark, P. (1995). Can there be an ethics of care?Journal of Medical Ethics 21, 19–24.
Noddings, N. (1984).Caring: A Feminine Approach To Ethics and Moral Education, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Ray, M. (1980). A philosophical analysis of caring within nursing.First National Conference: The Phenomena and Nature of Caring, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Seedhouse, D. (1986).Health: The Foundations For Achievement, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Seedhouse, D. (1997).Health Promotion: Philosophy, Prejudice and Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Seedhouse, D. (1991).Liberating Medicine, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Seedhouse, D. (1992) The two languages of care.Journal of Advances in Health and Nursing Studies 1(4), 23–32.
Lucas, J. (1993). Nursing analysis.Health Care Analysis 1(1), 81–85.
Gorovitz, S. (1994). Is caring a viable component of health care?Health Care Analysis 2(2), 129–133.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Schie, T., Seedhouse, D. The importance of care. Health Care Anal 5, 283–291 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678526
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678526