IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v11y2016i01p91-96_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reasonable disagreement and the generally unacceptable: a philosophical analysis of Making Fair Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Rumbold, Benedict E.
  • Wilson, James

Abstract

In this article we consider the conclusions and recommendations of the World Health Organisation’s report Making Fair Choices from a philosophical perspective. In particular we reflect on the report’s return to substantive claims about justice in the allocation of health care resources and its argument that certain trade-offs are ‘generally unacceptable’.

Suggested Citation

  • Rumbold, Benedict E. & Wilson, James, 2016. "Reasonable disagreement and the generally unacceptable: a philosophical analysis of Making Fair Choices," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 91-96, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:11:y:2016:i:01:p:91-96_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133114000577/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dale, Elina & Peacocke, Elizabeth F. & Movik, Espen & Voorhoeve, Alex & Ottersen, Trygve & Kurowski, Christoph & Evans, David B. & Norheim, Ole Frithjof & Gopinathan, Unni, 2023. "Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119799, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:11:y:2016:i:01:p:91-96_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.