Toward Establishing a Universal Basic Health Norm

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Ethics & International Affairs Pub Date : 2006-08-30 DOI:10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00477.x
Arnab K. Acharya
{"title":"Toward Establishing a Universal Basic Health Norm","authors":"Arnab K. Acharya","doi":"10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00477.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>where the poorest face considerably higher mortality and morbidity rates than wealthier groups do. Yet most of these wealthier groups enjoy health levels that are far below those of people in the industrial countries. The most prominent normative response to this situation has been an equality-demanding norm, stipulating that we strive to make health outcomes more equal even within the developing countries. In this article, I argue that under current resource constraints, institutional arrangements seeking to ensure commonly accepted egalitarian goals would engender the decrease of health status of many who do not currently enjoy particularly high levels of health. Although an alternative view, the prioritarian view, can avoid some of the negative implications of the egalitarian view, it too is untenable given the current resource constraints. We should instead develop a threshold norm that characterizes <i>minimally adequate health status</i>. An institutional order is just with respect to health to the extent that participants in this order do not (avoidably) fail to reach this threshold. One implication is that redistribution of resources is limited within any developing country, and thus redistribution must take place from industrialized to poorer nations.</p>","PeriodicalId":11772,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & International Affairs","volume":"18 3","pages":"65-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00477.x","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-7093.2004.tb00477.x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

where the poorest face considerably higher mortality and morbidity rates than wealthier groups do. Yet most of these wealthier groups enjoy health levels that are far below those of people in the industrial countries. The most prominent normative response to this situation has been an equality-demanding norm, stipulating that we strive to make health outcomes more equal even within the developing countries. In this article, I argue that under current resource constraints, institutional arrangements seeking to ensure commonly accepted egalitarian goals would engender the decrease of health status of many who do not currently enjoy particularly high levels of health. Although an alternative view, the prioritarian view, can avoid some of the negative implications of the egalitarian view, it too is untenable given the current resource constraints. We should instead develop a threshold norm that characterizes minimally adequate health status. An institutional order is just with respect to health to the extent that participants in this order do not (avoidably) fail to reach this threshold. One implication is that redistribution of resources is limited within any developing country, and thus redistribution must take place from industrialized to poorer nations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
建立全民基本卫生规范的努力
最贫穷群体面临的死亡率和发病率远高于较富裕群体。然而,这些富裕群体中的大多数人的健康水平远低于工业化国家的人。对这种情况的最突出的规范性反应是一项要求平等的规范,规定我们即使在发展中国家内部也要努力使保健结果更加平等。在本文中,我认为,在目前的资源限制下,寻求确保普遍接受的平等主义目标的制度安排将导致许多目前不享有特别高健康水平的人的健康状况下降。虽然另一种观点,即优先主义观点,可以避免平等主义观点的一些消极影响,但鉴于目前的资源限制,它也是站不住脚的。相反,我们应该制定一个阈值规范,以确定最低限度的适当健康状况。就健康而言,体制秩序是公正的,因为该秩序的参与者不会(不可避免地)达不到这一门槛。其中一个含义是,资源的再分配在任何发展中国家内部都是有限的,因此必须从工业化国家向较贫穷国家进行再分配。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
Accountability for the Taking of Human Life with LAWS in War Toward a Balanced Approach: Bridging the Military, Policy, and Technical Communities How to End a War: Essays on Justice, Peace, and Repair, Graham Parsons and Mark A. Wilson, eds. (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 207 pp., cloth $110, eBook $110. Backfire: How Sanctions Reshape the World Against U.S. Interests, Agathe Demarais (New York: Columbia University Press, 2022) 304 pp., cloth $30, eBook $29.99. The Hegemon's Tool Kit: US Leadership and the Politics of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, Rebecca Davis Gibbons (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2022), 240 pp., cloth $49.95, eBook $32.99.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1