The increasing awareness of personal health responsibility had led to the claim that patients with ‘self-inflicted’ conditions have less of a right to treatment at the public's expense than patients whose conditions arose from ‘uncontrollable’ causes. This paper suggests that regardless of any social decision as to the limits and scope of individual responsibility for health, the moral framework for discussing this issue is equality. In order to reach a consensus, discourse should be according to the common basis of all theories of justice, Aristotle's formal principle of justice: ‘equals must be treated equally and unequals must be treated unequally, in proportion to the relevant inequality’. This paper deals with the question of whether and under what circumstances risk-taking behaviour could be regarded as a ‘relevant inequality’ with respect to the right to health care. Following a discussion of the relevant inequalities in health care, the conclusion is reached that the fact that the condition was avoidably caused by the patient and is therefore his or her fault can not be regarded necessarily as a relevant inequality. Therefore, the issue is one of societal support for health care; after defining relevant inequalities in this respect, the paper attempts to apply them to self-inflicted conditions. This analysis reveals that, in theory, it may be just to restrict societal support in such cases. However, the application of this conclusion requires proof of many factual claims—for which there is often very limited evidence.
- Applied and professional ethics
- health care for specific diseases/groups
- right to health care
- self-inflicted conditions
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- On the relevance of personal responsibility in priority setting: a cross-sectional survey among Norwegian medical doctors
- Personal responsibility for health as a rationing criterion: why we don’t like it and why maybe we should
- Ethical issues related to the access to orphan drugs in Brazil: the case of mucopolysaccharidosis type I
- Priority setting and personal health responsibility: an analysis of Norwegian key policy documents
- Ethics, economics, and public financing of health care
- Raising the profile of fairness and justice in medical practice and policy
- National health system cuts and triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and Spain: ethical implications
- COVID-19 pandemic, the scarcity of medical resources, community-centred medicine and discrimination against persons with disabilities
- Distributive justice and the harm to medical professionals fighting epidemics
- Ethical issues in funding orphan drug research and development