Abstracts
Abstract
Many assume that theories of distributive justice must obviously take people’s lifetimes, and only their lifetimes, as the relevant period across which we distribute. Although the question of the temporal subject has risen in prominence, it is still relatively underdeveloped, particularly in the sphere of health and healthcare. This paper defends a particular view, “momentary sufficientarianism,” as being an important element of healthcare justice. At the heart of the argument is a commitment to pluralism about justice, where theorizing about just principles demands paying attention to the role particular goods play in our lives. This means that different approaches to the temporal subject—as well as other relevant issues—may be appropriate for different goods, including different goods within healthcare. In particular, the paper discusses two central goods targeted by healthcare: life-saving and pain relief. The view is offered as complementary to, rather than competitive with, lifetime approaches. As such, the paper finishes by considering how a pluralist approach, which engages both with people’s lives as a whole and with their states at particular moments, can reconcile the potentially competing claims in healthcare that emerge from these two perspectives.
Résumé
Plusieurs présument qu’il est clair que les théories de justice distributive doivent prendre la durée de vie des gens comme seule et unique période de distribution pertinente. Même si la question du sujet temporel a gagné en importance, elle demeure relativement sous-exploitée, et ce, particulièrement dans le domaine de la santé et des soins de santé. Cet article présente une conception particulière, le « suffisantisme momentané », comme une composante importante de la justice en santé. Cet argument se centre sur un engagement pluraliste en matière de justice, qui implique que toute théorisation de principes justes doit prendre en compte le rôle que jouent des biens particuliers dans nos vies. Cela signifie que différentes approches du sujet temporel - ainsi que d’autres enjeux pertinents - peuvent convenir a différents bien, y compris des biens dans le domaine de la santé. Plus précisément, l’article traite de deux biens principaux que visent les soins de santé : l’aide vitale et le soulagement de la douleur. Cette conception s’articule en complémentarité avec les approches de la durée de vie, plutôt qu’en compétition avec elles. Dans cette optique, l’article examine pour finir comment une approche pluraliste, qui concerne a la fois la vie des gens dans sa totalité ainsi que leur condition a des moments précis, peut arriver a concilier les thèses émergeant de ces deux perspectives sur les soins de santé qui, autrement, entreraient potentiellement en conflit.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Anderson, Elizabeth, “What Is the Point of Equality?”, Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, 1999, p. 287-337.
- Axelsen, David, and Lasse Nielsen, “Sufficiency as Freedom from Duress,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 4, 2015, p. 745-763.
- Battin, Margaret, “Age Rationing and the Just Distribution of Healthcare: Is There a Duty To Die?”, Ethics, vol. 97, no. 2, 1987, p. 317-340.
- Bidadanure, Juliana, “In Defense of the PLA,” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2013, p. 25-27.
- Bidadanure, Juliana, “Making Sense of Age-Group Justice: A Time for Relational Equality?”, Politics, Philosophy and Economics, vol. 15, no. 3, 2016, p. 234-260.
- Bou-Habib, Paul, “Distributive Justice, Dignity, and the Lifetime View,” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 37, no. 2, 2011, p. 285-310.
- Callahan, Daniel, Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Ageing Society with “A Response to My Critics”, Washington, Georgetown University Press, 1995.
- Casal, Paula, “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough”, Ethics, vol. 117, no. 2, 2007, p. 296-326.
- Chisholm, James, “Flourishing, Feelings, and Fitness: An Evolutionary Perspective on Health Capability,” in Aldo Poiani (ed.) Pragmatic Evolution: Practical Applications of Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 188-212.
- Cropper, Maureen L., Sema K. Aydede, and Paul R. Portney, “Preferences for Life Saving Programs: How the Public Discounts Time and Age,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 8, no. 3, 1994, p. 243–265.
- Daniels, Norman, “Healthcare Needs and Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 2, 1981, p. 146-179.
- Daniels, Norman, Just Healthcare Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
- Daniels, Norman, Am I My Parents’ Keeper? An Essay on Justice Between the Young and the Old, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988.
- Daniels, Norman, Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- Daniels, Norman, “Justice between Adjacent Generations: Further Thoughts,” Journal of Political Theory, vol. 16, no. 4, 2008, p. 475-494.
- Daniels, Norman, “Global Aging and the Allocation of Healthcare Across the Life Span,” The American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2013, p. 1-2.
- Davies, Ben, “Review of Dennis McKerlie, Justice Between the Young and the Old,” Czech Sociological Review, vol. 51, no. 3, 2015, p. 562-566.
- Davies, Ben, “Ageing and Terminal Illness: Problems for Rawlsian Justice,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 35, no. 4, 2018, p. 775–789.
- Fleurbaey Marc, “Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome?,” Economics and Philosophy, vol. 11, no. 1, 1995, p. 25–55.
- Frankfurt, Harry, “Equality as a Moral Ideal,” Ethics, vol. 98, no. 1, 1987, p. 21–43.
- Gosseries, Axel, “Qu’est-ce que le suffisantisme?”, Philosophiques, vol. 38, no. 2, 2011, p. 465-492.
- Gutmann, Amy, “Justice Across the Spheres,” in Michael Walzer and David Miller (eds.) Pluralism, Justice and Equality, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 99-119.
- Hardwig, John, “Is There a Duty to Die?”, Hastings Center Report, vol. 27, no. 2, 1997, p. 34-42.
- Harris, John “Immortal Ethics,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1019, 2004, p. 527-534.
- Huseby, Robert, “Sufficiency: Restated and Defended,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 2, 2009, p. 178-197.
- Jecker, Nancy, “Justice between Age Groups: An Objection to the Prudential Lifespan Approach,” American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 13, no. 8, 2013, p. 3-15.
- Jecker, Nancy, “Age Related Inequalities in Health and Healthcare: The Life Stages Approach,” Developing World Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 2, 2018, p. 144-155.
- Johannesson, Magnus and Per-Olov Johansson, “Is the Valuation of a QALY Gained Independent of Age? Some Empirical Evidence,” Journal of Health Economics vol. 16, no. 5, 1997, p. 589–599.
- Kappel, Klemens, and Peter Sandøe, “QALYs, Age and Fairness,” Bioethics, vol. 6, no. 4, 1992, p. 297-316.
- Kappel, Klemens, and Peter Sandøe, “Saving the Young before the Old – A Reply to John Harris,” Bioethics, vol. 8, no. 1, 1994, p. 84-92.
- Lazenby, Hugh, “Is Age Special? Justice, Complete Lives and the Prudential Lifespan Account,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 28, no. 4, 2011, p. 327-340.
- Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, Luck Egalitarianism. London, Bloomsbury, 2015.
- McKerlie, Dennis, “Equality and Time,” Ethics, vol. 99, no. 3, 1989, p. 475-491.
- McKerlie, Dennis, “Equality between Age-Groups,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 21, no. 3, 1992, p. 275-295.
- McKerlie, Dennis, “Justice between the Young and the Old,” Philosophy & Public Affairs·, vol. 30, no. 2, 2001, p. 152-177.
- McKerlie, Dennis, Justice Between the Young and the Old, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
- Nord, Erik, Cost-Value Analysis in Healthcare: Making Sense Out of QALYs, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
- Nord, Erik, Andrew Street, Jeff Richardson, Helga Kuhse, and Peter Singer, “The Significance of Age and Duration of Effect in Social Evaluation of Healthcare,” Healthcare Analysis, vol. 4, no. 2, 1996, p. 103–111.
- Nussbaum, Martha, “Human Functioning and Social Justice,” Political Theory, vol. 20, no. 2, 1992, p. 202-246.
- Nussbaum, Martha, Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2006.
- Overall, Christine, “Life Enhancement Technologies: Significance of Social Category Membership,” in Nick Bostrom and Julian Savulescu (eds.), Human Enhancement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 327-340.
- Ram-Tiktin, Efrat, “The Right to Healthcare as a Right to Basic Human Functional Capabilities,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 15, no. 3, 2012, p. 337-351
- Rumbold, Benedict, Albert Weale, Annette Rid, James Wilson, and Peter Littlejohns, “Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, 2017, p. 107-134
- Segall, Shlomi, Why Inequality Matters: Luck Egalitarianism, Its Meaning and Value, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016.
- Sen, Amartya, The Idea of Justice, Cambridge, Belknap, 2009.
- Schramme, Thomas, “The Significance of the Concept of Disease for Justice in Healthcare,” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, vol. 28, no. 2, 2007, p. 121-135.
- Shields, Liam, “The Prospects for Sufficientarianism,” Utilitas, vol. 24, no. 1, 2012, p. 101-117.
- Shields, Liam, Just Enough: Sufficiency as a Demand of Justice, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
- Temkin, Larry, “Equality, Priority, and the Levelling Down Objection,” in Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000, p. 126-161.
- Timmermann, J., “The Individualist Lottery: How People Count, but Not Their Numbers”,Analysis, vol. 64, no. 2, 2004, p. 106-112.
- Wagland, Richard, “Social Injustice: Distributive Egalitarianism, the Complete-Life View, and Age Discrimination,” in: Harry Lesser (ed.), Justice for Older People, New York, Rodopi, 2012, p. 143–160.
- Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, New York, Basic Books, 1984.
- Wikler, Daniel, “Personal and Social Responsibility for Health,” Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 16, no. 2, 2002, p. 47-55.
- Williams, Alan, “Intergenerational Equity: An Exploration of the Fair Innings Argument,” Health Economics, vol. 6, no. 2, 1997, p. 117-132.
- Williams, Alan, What Could be Nicer than NICE?, London, Office of Health Economics, 2004.
- Wolff, Jonathan, “Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 27, no. 2, 1998, p. 97-122.