PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Benedict Rumbold
TI  - On Engster's care-justification of the specialness thesis about healthcare
AID  - 10.1136/medethics-2015-102799
DP  - 2017 Aug 01
TA  - Journal of Medical Ethics
PG  - 501--505
VI  - 43
IP  - 8
4099  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/43/8/501.short
4100  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/43/8/501.full
SO  - J Med Ethics2017 Aug 01; 43
AB  - To say health is ‘special’ is to say that it has a moral significance that differentiates it from other goods (cars, say or radios) and, as a matter of justice, warrants distributing it separately. In this essay, I critique a new justification for the specialness thesis about healthcare (STHC) recently put forth by Engster. I argue that, regrettably, Engster's justification of STHC ultimately fails and fails on much the same grounds as have previous justifications of STHC. However, I also argue that Engster's argument still adds something valuable to the debate around STHC insofar as it reminds us that the moral significance of healthcare may be wider than simply its effect on the incidence of disability and disease: one further reason we may think healthcare is morally significant is because it concerns the treatment and care of those who are already unwell.