Health in the Name of Justice: Does Justice Require a Right to Health

<p>Upholding and seeking justice in society has been important for philosophers and religious thinkers throughout the ages. Debates of different conceptions of justice have ranged from Plato’s conception of the just individual, to Aristotle’s just community where individuals receive what is owed to them according to their merit, to Kant’s claim that justice concerns the “… exercise of will among people; and it is concerned with the possibility and freedom of the exercise of will …” (Hudson, 2003, p. 11). Interpretations of justice and the value of justice in society vary. Fundamentally, however, theories of justice are concerned with answering the question, what do we as a society owe each other by determining the set of rights that are inalienable and vital for a just society to protect. Theories of justice hope to inform us of the rights that are essential for society to defend and uphold. The ever increasing amount of medical knowledge and sophisticated medical treatments now available raise questions of social justice in health and has prompted many to argue whether or not there is a right to health. As Charles Fried (1976) explained over thirty years ago, extending certain medical treatments to the poor seemed possible and inevitable during a period when certain medical advances in treating illness and disease, such as the introduction of antibiotics and vaccines, made a huge difference to the health of the population. He claims that in this “ ‘Golden Age’ we could unambiguously afford a notion of a general right to medical care because there were a number of clear successes available to medicine, and these successes were not unduly costly” (p. 29-30). However, as Fried recognised in the 1970s, and is even truer today with the costs associated with chronic illnesses, extending universal medical care to all in society in cases where treatment is expensive and marginally beneficial is problematic at best.</p>

Health in the Name of Justice: Does Justice Require a Right to Health

<p>Upholding and seeking justice in society has been important for philosophers and religious thinkers throughout the ages. Debates of different conceptions of justice have ranged from Plato’s conception of the just individual, to Aristotle’s just community where individuals receive what is owed to them according to their merit, to Kant’s claim that justice concerns the “… exercise of will among people; and it is concerned with the possibility and freedom of the exercise of will …” (Hudson, 2003, p. 11). Interpretations of justice and the value of justice in society vary. Fundamentally, however, theories of justice are concerned with answering the question, what do we as a society owe each other by determining the set of rights that are inalienable and vital for a just society to protect. Theories of justice hope to inform us of the rights that are essential for society to defend and uphold. The ever increasing amount of medical knowledge and sophisticated medical treatments now available raise questions of social justice in health and has prompted many to argue whether or not there is a right to health. As Charles Fried (1976) explained over thirty years ago, extending certain medical treatments to the poor seemed possible and inevitable during a period when certain medical advances in treating illness and disease, such as the introduction of antibiotics and vaccines, made a huge difference to the health of the population. He claims that in this “ ‘Golden Age’ we could unambiguously afford a notion of a general right to medical care because there were a number of clear successes available to medicine, and these successes were not unduly costly” (p. 29-30). However, as Fried recognised in the 1970s, and is even truer today with the costs associated with chronic illnesses, extending universal medical care to all in society in cases where treatment is expensive and marginally beneficial is problematic at best.</p>

The making and unmaking of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis: On the mismatch between illness and disease. Results from an Italian study

The diagnostic process in contemporary medical practice is increasingly technical, specialised and relying on population-based ranges of biological normalcy. Disease is defined according to a hierarchy of evidence that privileges specialist knowledge and marginalises subjective experiences of illness. Medical and individual definitions of the situation can conflict in two ways: (i) a diagnosis is made in the absence of symptoms, (ii) individual suffering does not constitute ‘real’ disease if it is not validated by scientific evidence. This article investigates how the discrepancy between specialist and embodied knowledge is experienced and tentatively solved by patients’ self-narratives. Starting from the analysis of 22 in-depth interviews with people affected by autoimmune diseases, we focus on the subgroup affected by Hashimoto’s thyroiditis. Applying the most-different-systems design, we confront two flesh-and-blood ideal-types of illness narratives characterised by a mismatch between illness and disease. Their diagnostic trajectories are outlined and discussed as poles of a continuum of experiences resulting from different configurations of medical evidence of disease and subjective evidence of illness.

Borders and the Design of the Civic

The word border may be the most constraining on human thought and action in history. Whether borders on territory, borders from ideologies, from politics, or anything else; they all condition action and thinking. I want to focus on the many borders that humans erect, walls that we construct, and how they block flows and processes that constitute life and well-being. If this were a conference on sustainability or ecology, I would go on about how human borders, especially administrative and infrastructural ones, block ecological flows and processes and thus harm biological life, including humans. Most ancient traditions of wellness and health, including Ayurvedic, Tantric, Chinese, Greek, and Persian, stressed the free flow of energy. Blockage of flows in the body were sources of illness and disease. Borders of all kinds are infused into virtually every thing that humans create, from organizations and institutions to customs and traditions. Yet the most constraining borders of all are the borders on our own thinking. After addressing several essential characteristics of borders, a number of policies and actions are suggested for dealing with political conflicts and humanitarian crises related to borders.

Diagnosis: A critical social reflection in the genomic era

© 2019, Associacao Brasileira de Pos - Graduacao em Saude Coletiva. All rights reserved. Diagnosis is a pivotal tool for the work of medicine as they categorise and classify individual ailments via a generalised schema. However diagnosis is also a profoundly social act, which reflects society, its values and how it makes sense of illness and disease. Considering diagnosis critically, as well as practically, is an important job of the sociologist. This paper reviews how a social model can provide a critical tool for viewing diagnosis in the genomic era. It explores how the formulation of diagnosis, be it via genetic explanations or microbiological ones, are the product of social discovery, negotiation, and consensus.

Diagnosis: A critical social reflection in the genomic era

© 2019, Associacao Brasileira de Pos - Graduacao em Saude Coletiva. All rights reserved. Diagnosis is a pivotal tool for the work of medicine as they categorise and classify individual ailments via a generalised schema. However diagnosis is also a profoundly social act, which reflects society, its values and how it makes sense of illness and disease. Considering diagnosis critically, as well as practically, is an important job of the sociologist. This paper reviews how a social model can provide a critical tool for viewing diagnosis in the genomic era. It explores how the formulation of diagnosis, be it via genetic explanations or microbiological ones, are the product of social discovery, negotiation, and consensus.

MENJAGA SEHAT, MENJAGA ADAT PRAKTIK PENGOBATAN TRADISIONAL TUMPUROO DAN PELESTARIAN ADAT DI HUKAEA-LAEYA

The Hukaea-Laeya community has been established as a customic village inhabited by the ethnic of Mororene who still strongly believe in tumpuroo whose function is as a traditional healer. In terms of medical treatment, even until nowadays the people of Hukaea-Laeya still place a great trust in tumpuroo. The existence of tumpuroo is very closely related to the preservation of Moronenean traditional culture and health. This paper aimed to explain the traditional practices of tumpuroo with various values ​​and perspectives and their influence on the preservation of tradition, especially spells. The study was conducted with the ethnographic method in Hukaea-Laeya with data collection techniques through observation and in-depth interviews. From the data analysis, it could be explained that tumpuroo had a strategic role in protecting Moronenean's public health from illness and disease. On the other hand, tumpuroo also became important actors in the effort to preserve local wisdom stored in medical spells. Moreover, when the concept and worldview about health was also connected with the process of preserving customs related to ancestral spirits and the transcendental figures. The social health role of the tumpuroo could be enhanced by the government to encourage the promotion and development of health based on the capacity of local communities.