Comment on Professor David Hunter’s Talk

  • Bettina Schöne-Seifert
Chapter
Part of the Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung book series (ETHICSSCI, volume 13)

Abstract

Professor Hunter has presented his expert endeavour of “reviewing the debate and reality in Britain” (p 35) with regard to medical rationing. Hence, we have been provided with three different levels of data or theses to think about:
  1. 1.

    the level of de facto decision-making upon the provision and non-provision of potentially benefitting care to patients;

     
  2. 2.

    the level of British reflection thereupon — be it by politicians, by the public, or by academic experts of various backgrounds;

     
  3. 3.

    the level of Professor Hunter’s own theoretical inferences not the least from those very realities and debates.

     

Keywords

National Health Service Procedural Justice Academic Expert Health Care Budget Private Finance Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaron HJ, Schwartz WB (1984) The painful prescription: rationing hospital care. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bericht: Britischer Ärztetag: Gesundheitspolitisches Stimmungstief (1999) Deutsches Ärzteblatt 96: S. B 1569–70Google Scholar
  3. Daniels N et al. (1996) Benchmarks of Fairness for Health care Reform. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bettina Schöne-Seifert

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations