Advertisement

Rationing Health Care: Inherent Conflicts Within the Concept of Justice

  • Edmund D. Pellegrino
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 76)

Abstract

There is an almost universal conviction today that no society, even one as affluent as ours, can afford to provide all its citizens with the benefits modern medicine makes possible. There is every prospect that this disparity will become even greater in the foreseeable future. As a result some form of rationing is deemed necessary for both the good of individual and the common good.

Keywords

Distributive Justice Common Good Clinical Encounter Cost Containment Manage Care Organization 
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. Edmund D. Pellegrino, (2002). Doctor’s new practices offer deluxe services for deluxe fee.’ New York Times. January 15, 1.Google Scholar
  2. Edmund D. Pellegrino, (2001). The human right to health.’ Hastings Center Report, March-April, 29–30.Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 5thedition. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, B. (1989). Theories of Justice, vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Broder, D.S. (2001). Fix health care now.’ Washington Post, January 6, B7.Google Scholar
  6. Callahan, D. (1987). False Hopes. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  7. Cookson, R. and Dolan, P. (2000). Principles of justice in health care rationing.’Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 323–329.Google Scholar
  8. Dudley, R.A. and Luft, H. (2001). Managed care in transition.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 344, 1087–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferrer, R. (2001). A piece of my mind: Within the system of no-system.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2513–2514.Google Scholar
  10. Hatt, J.T. (1971). The universal law.’ Lancet, 1, 405–412.Google Scholar
  11. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health care system for the 21st century.’ Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lawrence, D. (2001). Gatekeeping reconsidered.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 345, 1342–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mason, J., Freemantle, N., and Nazareth, I. et al. (2001). When is it cost effective to change the behavior of health professionals?’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 2988–2992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pellegrino, E.D. (1982). Ethic of collective judgments in health care.’ Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 7, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pellegrino, E.D. (2000). Decision at the end of life: The use and abuse of the concept of futility.’ In: Juan De Dios Vial Correa and Elio Sgreccia (Eds.), The Dignity of the Dying Person (pp. 219–241; Proceedings of the Fifth Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, 24–27 Feb 1999 ). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticano.Google Scholar
  16. Pellegrino, E.D. (2001). The internal morality of clinical medicine: A paradigm for the ethics of the helping and healing professions.’ Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26, 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pellegrino, E.D. and Harvey, J.C. (2001). Whom should a patient trust?’ America, October 1, 19–23. Sandy, L. (2001). What will it take?’ Washington Post. January 6, B7.Google Scholar
  18. Stevenson, R. W. and Girth, J. (2002). Web of safeguards failed as Enron fell, monitors missed warning signals of failure.’ The New York Times. January 20, 1, 261.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmund D. Pellegrino
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations