The right to health care: Some cross-national comparisons and U.S. Trends in policy

Caroline L. Kaufmann
{"title":"The right to health care: Some cross-national comparisons and U.S. Trends in policy","authors":"Caroline L. Kaufmann","doi":"10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>All developed, industrialized nations provide some system of health care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness. However, nations differ in terms of their policy toward the provision and distribution of health services. Basic to policy regarding access to medical care is the notion of health care as a right. This paper examines the evolution of the concept of a right to health care in three industrialized nations—the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S. Trends in the U.S. health care delivery system suggest an emerging policy which favors equity through federally subsidized care for the indigent. However, the U.S. health care system tolerates unequal distribution of services. The U.S.S.R. and U.K. health care systems have adopted explicit policies which support the right of all their citizens to health care. U.S. policy supporting the right to health care has been hampered by two primary factors. First is opposition within the medical profession toward the notion of health care as a right. Second is the inability of federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for health care delivery.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79378,"journal":{"name":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","volume":"15 4","pages":"Pages 157-162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0271-5392(81)90006-X","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social science & medicine. Part F, Medical & social ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027153928190006X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

All developed, industrialized nations provide some system of health care for the treatment of acute and chronic illness. However, nations differ in terms of their policy toward the provision and distribution of health services. Basic to policy regarding access to medical care is the notion of health care as a right. This paper examines the evolution of the concept of a right to health care in three industrialized nations—the U.S.S.R., Great Britain and the U.S. Trends in the U.S. health care delivery system suggest an emerging policy which favors equity through federally subsidized care for the indigent. However, the U.S. health care system tolerates unequal distribution of services. The U.S.S.R. and U.K. health care systems have adopted explicit policies which support the right of all their citizens to health care. U.S. policy supporting the right to health care has been hampered by two primary factors. First is opposition within the medical profession toward the notion of health care as a right. Second is the inability of federal agencies to develop a comprehensive plan for health care delivery.

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
医疗保健权:一些跨国比较和美国的政策趋势。
所有发达的工业化国家都为急慢性疾病的治疗提供了某种卫生保健体系。然而,各国在提供和分配卫生服务方面的政策各不相同。关于获得医疗保健的政策的基础是保健是一项权利的概念。本文考察了三个工业化国家——苏联、英国和美国——医疗保健权利概念的演变。美国医疗保健提供系统的趋势表明,通过联邦政府对贫困人口的补贴,一种有利于公平的新兴政策。然而,美国的医疗保健系统容忍服务的不平等分配。苏联和英国的医疗保健系统采取了明确的政策,支持所有公民享有医疗保健的权利。美国支持医疗保健权利的政策受到两个主要因素的阻碍。首先是医学界内部反对将医疗保健视为一种权利。第二,联邦机构没有能力制定一个全面的医疗服务计划。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Justice and a universal right to basic health care. What is the obligation of the medical profession in the distribution of health care? Triage in medical practices: an unacceptable model? The involuntary commitment and treatment of mentally ill persons. The right of public access to cadaver organs.
×
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