Response: Freedom from Pain as a Rawlsian Primary Good
In a recent article in this journal, Carl Knight and Andreas Albertsen argue that Rawlsian theories of distributive justice as applied to health and healthcare fail to accommodate both palliative care and the desirability of less painful treatments. The asserted Rawlsian focus on opportunities or ca...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
[2016]
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2016, Volume: 30, Issue: 9, Pages: 774-775 |
| RelBib Classification: | NCB Personal ethics NCH Medical ethics VA Philosophy |
| Further subjects: | B
Justice
B allocating healthcare B Political Philosophy B Medical Ethics B Palliative Care B tributive B Rawls B pain relief ethics |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Verlag) Volltext (doi) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1727674162 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210831165952.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 200824s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/bioe.12271 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1727674162 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1727674162 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Roberts, Adam James |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Response |b Freedom from Pain as a Rawlsian Primary Good |
| 264 | 1 | |c [2016] | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In a recent article in this journal, Carl Knight and Andreas Albertsen argue that Rawlsian theories of distributive justice as applied to health and healthcare fail to accommodate both palliative care and the desirability of less painful treatments. The asserted Rawlsian focus on opportunities or capacities, as exemplified in Normal Daniels’ developments of John Rawls’ theory, results in a normative account of healthcare which is at best only indirectly sensitive to pain and so unable to account for the value of efforts of which the sole purpose is pain reduction. I argue that, far from undermining the Rawlsian project and its application to problems of health, what the authors’ argument at most amounts to is a compelling case for the inclusion of freedom from physical pain within its index of primary goods. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Rawls | |
| 650 | 4 | |a allocating healthcare | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Justice | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Medical Ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a pain relief ethics | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Palliative Care | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Political Philosophy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a tributive | |
| 652 | |a NCB:NCH:VA | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Bioethics |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1987 |g 30(2016), 9, Seite 774-775 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)271596708 |w (DE-600)1480658-7 |w (DE-576)078707986 |x 1467-8519 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:30 |g year:2016 |g number:9 |g pages:774-775 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12271 |x Verlag |
| 856 | |u https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12271 |x doi |3 Volltext | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 3742335375 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1727674162 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220104114500 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 200824||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixzo | ||
| LOK | |0 936ln |0 1442052813 |a NCB | ||
| LOK | |0 936ln |0 1550736558 |a NCH | ||
| LOK | |0 936ln |0 1442053844 |a VA | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||
| REL | |a 1 | ||
| SUB | |a REL | ||