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.
the level of de facto decision-making upon the provision and non-provision of potentially benefitting care to patients;
-
2.
the level of British reflection thereupon — be it by politicians, by the public, or by academic experts of various backgrounds;
-
3.
the level of Professor Hunter’s own theoretical inferences not the least from those very realities and debates.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aaron HJ, Schwartz WB (1984) The painful prescription: rationing hospital care. The Brookings Institution, Washington
Bericht: Britischer Ärztetag: Gesundheitspolitisches Stimmungstief (1999) Deutsches Ärzteblatt 96: S. B 1569–70
Daniels N et al. (1996) Benchmarks of Fairness for Health care Reform. OUP, New York
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schöne-Seifert, B. (2002). Comment on Professor David Hunter’s Talk. In: Breyer, F., Kliemt, H., Thiele, F., Wütscher, F. (eds) Rationing in Medicine. Wissenschaftsethik und Technikfolgenbeurteilung, vol 13. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04798-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04798-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07670-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-04798-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive