Response: Freedom from Pain as a Rawlsian Primary Good
In a recent article in this journal, Carl Knight and Andreas Albertsen argue that Rawlsian theories of distributive justice as applied to health and healthcare fail to accommodate both palliative care and the desirability of less painful treatments. The asserted Rawlsian focus on opportunities or ca...
| Главный автор: | |
|---|---|
| Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
| Язык: | Английский |
| Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Загрузка...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Опубликовано: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2016]
|
| В: |
Bioethics
Год: 2016, Том: 30, Выпуск: 9, Страницы: 774-775 |
| Индексация IxTheo: | NCB Индивидуальная этика NCH Медицинская этика VA Философия |
| Другие ключевые слова: | B
Justice
B allocating healthcare B Political Philosophy B Medical Ethics B Palliative Care B tributive B Rawls B pain relief ethics |
| Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
| Итог: | In a recent article in this journal, Carl Knight and Andreas Albertsen argue that Rawlsian theories of distributive justice as applied to health and healthcare fail to accommodate both palliative care and the desirability of less painful treatments. The asserted Rawlsian focus on opportunities or capacities, as exemplified in Normal Daniels’ developments of John Rawls’ theory, results in a normative account of healthcare which is at best only indirectly sensitive to pain and so unable to account for the value of efforts of which the sole purpose is pain reduction. I argue that, far from undermining the Rawlsian project and its application to problems of health, what the authors’ argument at most amounts to is a compelling case for the inclusion of freedom from physical pain within its index of primary goods. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12271 |