Article info
PDFResponse
Rawlsian justice in healthcare: a response to Cox and Fritz
- Correspondence to Mr Abeezar I Sarela, Department of General Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK; a.sarela{at}leeds.ac.uk
Citation
Rawlsian justice in healthcare: a response to Cox and Fritz
Publication history
- Received December 6, 2020
- Revised February 25, 2021
- Accepted March 4, 2021
- First published March 24, 2021.
Online issue publication
November 15, 2022
Article Versions
- Previous version (15 November 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- Integrating philosophy, policy and practice to create a just and fair health service
- In defence of our model for just healthcare systems: why an explicit philosophy is needed in addition to the law, and how Scanlon helps derive just policies
- Pharmacist conscience clauses and access to oral contraceptives
- Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity
- Not so special after all? Daniels and the social determinants of health
- Individual autonomy and state involvement in health care
- Genetic information, insurance and a pluralistic approach to justice
- Justice and procedure: how does “accountability for reasonableness” result in fair limit-setting decisions?
- Raising the profile of fairness and justice in medical practice and policy
- Age rationing and prudential lifespan account in Norman Daniels’ Just health