scholarly journals The Political Ethics of Health

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Weinstock

This paper seeks to provide an overview of some of the main areas of debate that have emerged in recent years at the interface between theories of justice and health care. First, the paper considers various positions as to what the index of justice with respect to health ought to be. It warns on practical and principled grounds against conceptual inflation of the notion of "health" as it appears in theories of distributive justice. Second, it considers how various standards according to which goods ought to be distributed in a just society apply to debates within health care.

2019 ◽  
pp. 182-206
Author(s):  
Paul Thagard

The crucial bridge between observations and values in the study of justice is vital needs, which must be satisfied if people are going to function as human beings. A just society meets both the biological needs of all its members for water, food, shelter, and health care and the psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Justice does not require complete equality of wealth, income, or preference satisfaction, as long as people are equal in having their vital needs satisfied. The needs-sufficiency view of social justice has strong implications for establishing political and legal justice, including taking into account the needs of future generations. To contribute to social justice, the political system in a country needs to support the population’s vital needs. Democracy is the best available system for accomplishing this support.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (Special Issue) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
Dario Sacchini ◽  
◽  
Pietro Refolo ◽  
Antonio G. Spagnolo ◽  
◽  
...  

"Introduction. The recent introduction of extremely effective drugs in treating diseases, but associated with exorbitant costs raised several issues in terms of distributive justice. However, in this debate justice is widely thought in intragenerational terms. The work will explore the concept of intergenerational health care justice, in particular the argument, often used to justify the introduction of this type of drugs, according to which the vast amount of money spent now will allow to have savings in the long run. The recent introduction of some drugs that are extremely effective in treating diseases but associated with exorbitant costs, raised several issues in terms of distributive justice. However, in this debate justice is widely thought in intragenerational terms. Methods: A review of key documents on intergenerational justice was conducted, followed by a nonsystematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature. The existing material was analyzed and a draft manuscript was prepared and discussed. Some experts carried out the revision of the manuscript until consensus was reached. Results: The concept of intergenerational health care justice has never been well explored. From an intergenerational point of view, the argument – which is often supported by pharmaco-economic evaluations – according to which the vast amount of money spent now for this type of drugs will allow to have savings in the long run is not in itself coherent with the main theories of justice. Conclusions: Considerations that are extrinsic to the assumptions of the main theories of justice are needed in order to justify the argument above. "


Author(s):  
Gerald Gaus

This book lays out a vision for how we should theorize about justice in a diverse society. It shows how free and equal people, faced with intractable struggles and irreconcilable conflicts, might share a common moral life shaped by a just framework. The book argues that if we are to take diversity seriously and if moral inquiry is sincere about shaping the world, then the pursuit of idealized and perfect theories of justice—essentially, the entire production of theories of justice that has dominated political philosophy for the past forty years—needs to change. Drawing on recent work in social science and philosophy, the book points to an important paradox: only those in a heterogeneous society—with its various religious, moral, and political perspectives—have a reasonable hope of understanding what an ideally just society would be like. However, due to its very nature, this world could never be collectively devoted to any single ideal. The book defends the moral constitution of this pluralistic, open society, where the very clash and disagreement of ideals spurs all to better understand what their personal ideals of justice happen to be. Presenting an original framework for how we should think about morality, this book rigorously analyzes a theory of ideal justice more suitable for contemporary times.


Author(s):  
K W M (Bill) Fulford ◽  
David Crepaz-Keay ◽  
Giovanni Stanghellini

This chapter examines how values influence the heterogeneity of depression. The plurality of values is increasingly significant for contemporary person-centred mental health care with its emphasis on quality of life and development of self-manvnagement skills. Values-based practice is a partner with medical law invn working with the plurality of personal values. The chapter explains what values are, shows how the plurality of values influences the heterogeneity of depression at several levels, and provides an overview of values-based practice. It looks at the resources available for combining values-based practice with medical law in contemporary person-centred care and indicates some of the challenges this raises. It concludes with a brief reflection on these challenges understood as an instance of what the political philosopher Isaiah Berlin called the challenge of pluralism.


Author(s):  
Koos Vorster

This research deals with the question of whether an ecumenical ethics can be developed in South Africa that at least will be applicable in the field of political ethics and that can assist the various ecclesiastical traditions to ‘speak with one voice’ when they address the government on matters of Christian ethical concern. The research rests on the recognition of the variety of ethical persuasions and points of view that flow from the variety of hermeneutical approaches to Scripture. However, within this plethora of ethical discourses, an ‘overlapping’ ethics based on a proposed set of minimum theological ideas can be pursued in order to reach at least an outline of an applicable ecumenical political ethics conducive to the church–state dialogue in South Africa today. The article concludes that a ‘minimum consensus’ on the role of revelation in the moral discourses is possible and is enriched by traditional ideas such as creation and natural law, the reign of God and Christology, and it can provide a suitable common ground for an ecumenical ethics applicable to the moral difficulties in the political domain in South Africa today.


Utilitas ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Kelly

The argument of this paper is part of a general defence of the claim that Bentham's moral theory embodies a utilitarian theory of distributive justice, which is developed in his Civil Law writings. Whereas it is a commonplace of recent revisionist scholarship to argue that J. S. Mill had a developed utilitarian theory of justice, few scholars regard Bentham as having a theory of justice, let alone one that rivals in sophistication that of Mill. Indeed, Gerald J. Postema in his bookBentham and the Common Law Tradition, argues that Bentham had no substantial concern with the concept of justice, and that what analysis of the concept there is in Bentham's thought is unlike the utilitarian theory of justice to be found in chapter five of J. S. Mill'sUtilitarianismAlthough Postema's interpretation is not the only one that will be addressed in this paper, it serves as an important starting point for any rival interpretation of Bentham's ethical theory for two reasons. Firstly, it is the most comprehensive and most penetrating discussion of Bentham's utilitarian theory, drawing as it does on a wide variety of published and unpublished materials written throughout Bentham's career. Secondly, it is interesting in this particular context because the contrast that Postema draws between Bentham's and Mill's theories of justice depends upon a particular reading of Mill's theory of justice and utility which is derived from recent scholarship and which is by no means uncontroversial. As part of the defence of the claim that Bentham had a sophisticated theory of distributive justice, it will be argued in this paper that the contrast drawn between Bentham and Mill does not stand up to careful scrutiny, for insofar as Mill's theory of justice can be consistently defended it is not significantly different from the utilitarian strategy that Bentham employed for incorporating considerations of distributive justice within his theory. This is not to claim that there are not significant differences between the theories of justice of Bentham and J. S. Mill, but it is to claim that whatever technical differences exist between their theories, both writers saw the need to incorporate the concept of justice within utilitarianism. Therefore, rather than showing that Mill is an interesting thinker to the extent that he abandons his early Benthamism, by demonstrating how close Mill's theory of utility and justice is to that of Bentham, it will be possible to argue that Bentham employed a sophisticated and subtle utilitarian theory that was responsive to the sort of problems which occupied Mill a generation later.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document