Health and Social Justice: Which Inequalities Matter (Most)? Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Social Determinants of Health: Why Should We Care?”

Preda, Adina; Voigt, Kristin

doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1048637

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although not all scholars agree on the criteria according to which a health inequality count as unfair (e.g. Preda & Voigt, 2015), they do agree on the importance of distinguishing between the two types of disparities from a policy making perspective (and so does the WHO, who uses the word “equity” in health, WHO, 2021). We believe that this distinction, in all of its complexity, can also illuminate the context of sport where in practice there is a need to distinguish on conceptual grounds, and from a policy making perspective, between the two types of disparities.…”

Section: Property Advantages and Inequalities And Inequities In Sportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The construction of categories in sport: Unfair advantages, equality of opportunity and strict attainability

Camporesi

Hämäläinen

2021

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On 8 September 2020, the Swiss Federal Supreme Sport dismissed the double appeal by Caster Semenya against the decision of the Court for Arbitration of Sport to uphold the World Athletics regulations restricting testosterone levels in female runners. On 24 February 2021, Semenya appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. This is the most recent episode of an international legal case which was ignited at the 2009 Berlin World Track Championship, when Semenya was 18 years old. Semenya's case has generated an intricate web of questions for classification in sport that are yet to be resolved. In this paper we aim to disentangle them. We proceed as follows: we describe the problem of binary classification related to Semenya's case and introduce the concept of property advantage, and the fair equality of opportunity principle. We compare Semenya's case with Eero Mantyranta's case and fail to identify a way according to which the two cases could justifiably be treated differently. We then discuss three possible ways to organize sport categories based on the combination of Loland's fair equality of opportunity principle and our strict attainability criterion, and outline the implications of each alternative for international sports law regulation. Finally, we summarize and outline the legacy of Semenya for the construction of categories in sport.

show abstract

Section: Property Advantages and Inequalities And Inequities In Sportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The construction of categories in sport: Unfair advantages, equality of opportunity and strict attainability

Camporesi

Hämäläinen

2021

European Journal of Sport Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others disagree, stating that improved health is a sufficient end in itself and that it is not the role of public health to address social inequities except as they pertain to health outcomes [ 35 , 36 ]. Preda and Voigt’s response questions the idea of a special role for health that warrants its separate consideration, and they call for more work to be done to strengthen the basis for normative claims of unfairness in the SDOH literature [ 37 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An empirical study of the ‘underscreened’ in organised cervical screening: experts focus on increasing opportunity as a way of reducing differences in screening rates

Williams

Carter

2016

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCervical cancer disproportionately burdens disadvantaged women. Organised cervical screening aims to make cancer prevention available to all women in a population, yet screening uptake and cancer incidence and mortality are strongly correlated with socioeconomic status (SES). Reaching underscreened populations is a stated priority in many screening programs, usually with an emphasis on something like ‘equity’. Equity is a poorly defined and understood concept. We aimed to explain experts’ perspectives on how cervical screening programs might justifiably respond to ‘the underscreened’.MethodsThis paper reports on a grounded theory study of cervical screening experts involved in program organisation. Participants were 23 experts from several countries and a range of backgrounds: gynecology; epidemiology; public health; pathology; general practice; policy making. Data were gathered via semi-structured interview and concepts developed through transcript coding and memo writing.ResultsMost experts expressed an intuitive commitment to reducing systematic differences in screening participation or cancer outcomes. They took three different implicit positions, however, on what made organised programs justifiable with respect to underscreened populations. These were: 1) accepting that population screening is likely to miss certain disenfranchised groups for practical and cultural reasons, and focusing on maximising mainstream reach; 2) identifying and removing barriers to screening; and 3) providing parallel tailored screening services that attended to different cultural needs. Positions tended to fall along country of practice lines.ConclusionsExperts emphasised the provision of opportunity for underscreened populations to take up screening. A focus on opportunity appeared to rely on tacit premises not supported by evidence: that provision of meaningful opportunity leads to increased uptake, and that increased uptake of an initial screening test by disadvantaged populations would decrease cervical cancer incidence and mortality. There was little attention to anything other than the point of testing, or the difficulties disadvantaged women can have in accessing follow up care. The different approaches to ‘improving equity’ taken by participants are differently justified, and differently justifiable, but none attend directly to the broader conditions of disadvantage.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0143-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Health and Social Justice: Which Inequalities Matter (Most)? Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Social Determinants of Health: Why Should We Care?”

Cited by 2 publications

References 17 publications

The construction of categories in sport: Unfair advantages, equality of opportunity and strict attainability

The construction of categories in sport: Unfair advantages, equality of opportunity and strict attainability

An empirical study of the ‘underscreened’ in organised cervical screening: experts focus on increasing opportunity as a way of reducing differences in screening rates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About