IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Equity is out of fashion? An essay on autonomy and health policy in the individualized society

Listed author(s):
  • Lindbladh, Eva
  • Lyttkens, Carl Hampus
  • Hanson, Bertil S.
  • Östergren, P. -O.

It is widely recognized that there is a discrepancy between principle and practice with respect to the health equity aim of public policy. This discrepancy is analyzed from two theoretical perspectives: the individualization of society and the fact that individual beliefs and values are connected to one's position in the social structure. These mechanisms influence both the choice of health policy measures and the normative judgements of preventive efforts, both of which tend to be consonant with the views of dominant social groups. In particular, we focus on the treatment of the ethical principle of autonomy and how this is reflected in health policy aimed at influencing health-related behaviour. We examine the current trend towards targeting health information campaigns on certain socio-economic groups and argue that it entails an ethical dilemma. The dominant discourse of the welfare state is contemplated as a means to understand why there tend to be a lack of emphasis on measures that are targeted at socio-economic inequalities. It is argued that there is no substantive basis in the individualized society for perceiving health equity as an independent moral principle and that the driving force behind the professed health equity goal may be in essence utilitarian.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

Volume (Year): 46 (1998)
Issue (Month): 8 (April)
Pages: 1017-1025

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:8:p:1017-1025
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Postal:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:46:y:1998:i:8:p:1017-1025. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.