Article Text
Abstract
In the literature on the subject there is a trend towards understanding the idea of rationing in healthcare very broadly, to include any form of restriction in supply. It is suggested in this paper that there are good reasons to resist this move, since it would both render the concept redundant through being trivially true and displace an earlier, egalitarian one that retains great moral significance for the supply of healthcare. The nature and significance of the narrower, egalitarian conception is set out, drawing particular attention to the fact that it marks a contrast with the idea of prioritising certain people or groups over others and to the fact that it is a form of rationing that is plausibly regarded as a morally desirable response to severe shortages. It is contrasted with the broad conception and arguments in favour of this latter are considered and rejected.
- Allocation of healthcare resources
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Reflective disequilibrium: a critical evaluation of the complete lives framework for healthcare rationing
- Age rationing and prudential lifespan account in Norman Daniels’ Just health
- Genetic information, insurance and a pluralistic approach to justice
- Does NICE apply the rule of rescue in its approach to highly specialised technologies?
- Infanticide and moral consistency
- On Engster's care-justification of the specialness thesis about healthcare
- The bioethical principles and Confucius’ moral philosophy
- Solidarity, justice and unconditional access to healthcare
- The moral significance of being born
- Alleviating the burden of malaria with gene drive technologies? A biocentric analysis of the moral permissibility of modifying malaria mosquitoes