Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Chronic disease as risk multiplier for disadvantage
  1. Francisca Stutzin Donoso
  1. Programa de Estudios Sociales en Salud, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
  1. Correspondence to Francisca Stutzin Donoso, Centre for Multidisciplinary and Intercultural Inquiry, Health Humanities, University College London, London, UK; francisca.stutzin.15{at}


This paper starts by establishing a prima facie case that disadvantaged groups or individuals are more likely to get a chronic disease and are in a disadvantaged position to adhere to chronic treatment despite access through Universal Health Coverage. However, the main aim of this paper is to explore the normative implications of this claim by examining two different but intertwined argumentative lines that might contribute to a better understanding of the ethical challenges faced by chronic disease health policy. The paper develops the argument that certain disadvantages which may predispose to illness might overlap with disadvantages that may hinder self-management, potentially becoming disadvantageous in handling chronic disease. If so, chronic diseases may be seen as disadvantages in themselves, describing a reproduction of disadvantage among the chronically ill and a vicious circle of disadvantage that could both predict and shed light on the catastrophic health outcomes among disadvantaged groups—or individuals—dealing with chronic disease.

  • distributive justice
  • health care for specific diseases/groups
  • ethics
  • social aspects
  • right to healthcare

Statistics from

Request Permissions

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.


  • Funding This study was funded by Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Other content recommended for you