Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Reasonable disagreement and the generally unacceptable: a philosophical analysis of Making Fair Choices

  • Benedict E. Rumbold (a1) and James Wilson (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

In this article we consider the conclusions and recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s report Making Fair Choices from a philosophical perspective. In particular we reflect on the report’s return to substantive claims about justice in the allocation of health care resources and its argument that certain trade-offs are ‘generally unacceptable’.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Correspondence to: Benedict E. Rumbold, Department of Political Science, UCL, The Rubin Building, 29/31 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9QU, UK. Email: b.rumbold@ucl.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

R. Ashcroft (2008), ‘Fair process and the redundancy of bioethics: a polemic’, Public Health Ethics, 1(1): 39.

N. Daniels (1994), ‘Four unsolved rationing problems: a challenge’, The Hastings Center Report, 24(4): 2729.

S. Holm (1998), ‘Goodbye to the simple solutions: the second phase of priority setting in health care’, British Medical Journal, 317: 10001002.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Health Economics, Policy and Law
  • ISSN: 1744-1331
  • EISSN: 1744-134X
  • URL: /core/journals/health-economics-policy-and-law
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×