The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason
This article argues that religious and other "non-public" reasoning can have a legitimate and beneficial role in justifying health-related resource allocation decisions affecting individuals, subpopulations and whole communities. Section I critically examines Norman Daniels’s exclusion of...
| Päätekijä: | |
|---|---|
| Aineistotyyppi: | Journal article |
| Kieli: | English |
| Julkaistu: |
Philosophy Documentation Center
2021
|
| _version_ | 1826304564468383744 |
|---|---|
| author | Hordern, J |
| author_facet | Hordern, J |
| author_sort | Hordern, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | This article argues that religious and other "non-public" reasoning can have a legitimate and beneficial role in justifying health-related resource allocation decisions affecting individuals, subpopulations and whole communities. Section I critically examines Norman Daniels’s exclusion of such reasoning from such justifications. Section II shows the inadequacy of Daniels’s approach to healthcare as a matter of basic justice, arguing that consensus public reason is indeterminate in certain areas of healthcare policy, including the use of life-sustaining resources and issues related to risk and responsibility. Section III shows how resource allocation decision-making can appropriately incorporate religious and "non-public" reasoning via the medical professional practice of collaborative deliberation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:19:44Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:f25313fb-a4d0-47eb-a13c-faf5ff4da1ab |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T06:19:44Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | Philosophy Documentation Center |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:f25313fb-a4d0-47eb-a13c-faf5ff4da1ab2022-03-27T12:02:51ZThe challenge of healthcare for consensus public reasonJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:f25313fb-a4d0-47eb-a13c-faf5ff4da1abEnglishSymplectic ElementsPhilosophy Documentation Center2021Hordern, JThis article argues that religious and other "non-public" reasoning can have a legitimate and beneficial role in justifying health-related resource allocation decisions affecting individuals, subpopulations and whole communities. Section I critically examines Norman Daniels’s exclusion of such reasoning from such justifications. Section II shows the inadequacy of Daniels’s approach to healthcare as a matter of basic justice, arguing that consensus public reason is indeterminate in certain areas of healthcare policy, including the use of life-sustaining resources and issues related to risk and responsibility. Section III shows how resource allocation decision-making can appropriately incorporate religious and "non-public" reasoning via the medical professional practice of collaborative deliberation. |
| spellingShingle | Hordern, J The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title | The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title_full | The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title_fullStr | The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title_full_unstemmed | The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title_short | The challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| title_sort | challenge of healthcare for consensus public reason |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hordernj thechallengeofhealthcareforconsensuspublicreason AT hordernj challengeofhealthcareforconsensuspublicreason |