A legal consideration of distributive justice and rights to health in the COVID-19 era
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: This study examined the theory of distributive justice and discussed its implications in terms of health rights. Methods: This study reviewed current distributional theories in terms of liberal distributive justice. Results: As a criterion for distribution, merit is appropriate in the sense that individual choice, effort, or ability can result in legitimate inequality, and merit-based distribution of the results can account for individuals with merit. Based on the difference principle enunciated by Rawls, the distribution occurs first in order to resolve unfair inequalities. According to the priority theory, distributions are intended for those who are poorer. According to the theory of hypothetical insurance by Dworkin, the distributions move according to need based on sufficientarianism, to ensure basic living standards to compensate for inherent disabilities and allow people to pursue their own preferences. Conclusion: Because of a diverse range of social aspects in reality, a just and perfect distribution theory is impossible. Nonetheless, we can gauge feasibility of each method by coherently examining the method of distribution combined with the objects of distribution.
Abstract
Objectives: This study examined the theory of distributive justice and discussed its implications in terms of health rights. Methods: This study reviewed current distributional theories in terms of liberal distributive justice. Results: As a criterion for distribution, merit is appropriate in the sense that individual choice, effort, or ability can result in legitimate inequality, and merit-based distribution of the results can account for individuals with merit. Based on the difference principle enunciated by Rawls, the distribution occurs first in order to resolve unfair inequalities. According to the priority theory, distributions are intended for those who are poorer. According to the theory of hypothetical insurance by Dworkin, the distributions move according to need based on sufficientarianism, to ensure basic living standards to compensate for inherent disabilities and allow people to pursue their own preferences. Conclusion: Because of a diverse range of social aspects in reality, a just and perfect distribution theory is impossible. Nonetheless, we can gauge feasibility of each method by coherently examining the method of distribution combined with the objects of distribution.
참고문헌 (19)
- Anderson, E. S., "What is the point of equality", Ethics, 109(2), pp.287~337 (1999)[DOI]
- Daniels, N., "Just health : Meeting health needs fairly" (2007), Cambridge University Press
- Daniels, N., "Four unresolved rationing problems : A challenge", Hastings Center Report, 24(4), pp.27~29 (1994)
- Dworkin, R., "What is equality? Part 2 : Equality of resources", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10(4), pp.283~345 (1981)
- Frankfurt, H., "Equality as a moral ideal", Ethics, 98(1), pp.21~43 (1987)[DOI]
- Harris, J., "Justice and equal opportunities in health care", Bioethics, 13(5), pp.392~404 (2002)[DOI]
- Kilner, J. F., "Who lives? Who dies?: Ethical criteria in patient selection" (1990), Yale University Press
- Kymlicka, W., "Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction" (2001), Oxford University Press
- Matravers, M., "Justice and Punishment : The rationale of coercion" (2000), Oxford University Press
- Maynard, A., "Logic in medicine : An economic perspective", British Medical Journal, 295, pp.1537~1541 (1987)[DOI]
- Miller, D., "Social Justice" (1976), Clarendon Press
- Nozick, R., "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" (1974), Blackwell
- Nussbaum, M. C., "Creating Capabilities : The human development approach" (2011), The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
- Powers, M, "Inequalities in health, inequalities in health care: Four generations of discussion about justice and cost-effectiveness analysis", Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 10(2), pp.109~127 (2000)[DOI]
- Rawls, J., "A Theory of Justice" (1971), Harvard University Press
- Sandel, M. J., "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" (1982), Cambridge University Press
- Sen, A. K., "The tanner lectures on human values" (1980), Cambridge University Press
- Silvers, A., "No basis for justice : Equal opportunity, normal functioning, and the distribution of healthcare", American Journal of Bioethics, 1(2), pp.35~36 (2001)
- Tan, K. C., "A defense of luck egalitarianism", Journal of Philosophy, 105(11), pp.665~690 (2008)