Can An Egalitarian Justify Universal Access to Health Care?

Jacobs, Lesley A.

doi:10.5840/soctheorpract19962238

Cited by 22 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lesley Jacobs offered the same criticism years ago-something i was unaware of when i lodged the criticism. See Jacobs (1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lingering Problems of Currency and Scope in Daniels's Argument for a Societal Obligation to Meet Health Needs

Sachs

2010

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Norman Daniels's new book, Just Health, brings together his decades of work on the problem of justice and health. It improves on earlier writings by discussing how we can meet health needs fairly when we cannot meet them all and by attending to the implications of the socioeconomic determinants of health. In this article I return to the core idea around which the entire theory is built: that the principle of equality of opportunity grounds a societal obligation to meet health needs. I point, first, that nowhere does Daniels say just what version of that principle he accepts. I then proceed to construct a principle on his behalf, based on a faithful reading of Just Health. Once we actually nail down the principle, I argue, we will find that there are two problems: it is implausible in itself, and it fails to ground a societal obligation to meet health needs.

show abstract

“…Lesley Jacobs offered the same criticism years ago-something i was unaware of when i lodged the criticism. See Jacobs (1996).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lingering Problems of Currency and Scope in Daniels's Argument for a Societal Obligation to Meet Health Needs

Sachs

2010

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Is universal health care just? Proponents often argue fairness requires it (Daniels 1985; Dworkin 1993); others disagree (Jacobs 1996). What about reparations for historical injustice?…”

Section: Fairness As Central To Nonideal Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness

Arvan¹

2019

J. of the Am. Philos. Assoc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that diverse theorists have reasons to theorize about fairness in nonideal conditions, including theorists who reject fairness in ideal theory. It then develops a new all-purpose model of ‘nonideal fairness’. Section 1 argues that fairness is central to nonideal theory across diverse ideological and methodological frameworks. Section 2 then argues that ‘nonideal fairness’ is best modeled by a nonideal original position adaptable to different nonideal conditions and background normative frameworks (including anti-Rawlsian ones). Section 3 argues that the parties to the model have grounds to seek a variety of remedial social, legal, cultural, and economic ‘nonideal primary goods’ for combating injustice as well as grounds to distribute these goods in an equitable and inclusive manner. Finally, I illustrate how the model indexes the nonideal primary goods it justifies to different nonideal contexts and background normative frameworks, illustrating why diverse theorists should find the model and its output principles attractive.

show abstract

“…it (Daniels 1995;Dworkin 1993), others disagree (Jacobs 1996). What about reparations for historical injustice?…”

Section: Fairness As Central To Nonideal Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness

Arvan

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forthcoming in Journal of the American Philosophical Association Accepted manuscript (please cite published version), Copyright-American Philosophical Association *I thank my colleagues M.L. Arvan, Steven Geisz, and Laura Kane for their invaluable feedback and support. I am also grateful to Helen De Cruz, two reviewers, and the editors of the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Finally, I thank Thomas Christiano and Gerald Gaus for guidance in the early stages of this project many years ago.

show abstract

Can An Egalitarian Justify Universal Access to Health Care?

Cited by 22 publications

References 0 publications

Lingering Problems of Currency and Scope in Daniels's Argument for a Societal Obligation to Meet Health Needs

Lingering Problems of Currency and Scope in Daniels's Argument for a Societal Obligation to Meet Health Needs

Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness

Nonideal Justice as Nonideal Fairness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About