Norman Daniels. Just Health

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 268-272
Author(s):  
T. Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
Norman Daniels

Legitimacy in bioethics: challenging the orthodoxy

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 416-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R Smith
Keyword(s):  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Norman Daniels ◽  
The Affordable Care Act ◽  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Orthodox View

Several prominent writers including Norman Daniels, James Sabin, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson and Leonard Fleck advance a view of legitimacy according to which, roughly, policies are legitimate if and only if they result from democratic deliberation, which employs only public reasons that are publicised to stakeholders. Yet, the process described by this view contrasts with the actual processes involved in creating the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and in attempting to pass the Health Securities Act (HSA). Since the ACA seems to be legitimate, as the HSA would have been had it passed, there seem to be counterexamples to this view. In this essay, I clarify the concept of legitimacy as employed in bioethics discourse. I then use that clarification to develop these examples into a criticism of the orthodox view–that it implies that legitimacy requires counterintuitively large sacrifices of justice in cases where important advancement of healthcare rights depends on violations of publicity. Finally, I reply to three responses to this challenge: (1) that some revision to the orthodox view salvages its core commitments, (2) that its views of publicity and substantive considerations do not have the implications that I claim and (3) that arguments for it are strong enough to support even counterintuitive results. My arguments suggest a greater role for substantive considerations than the orthodox view allows.

GENES, JUSTICE, AND OBLIGATIONS TO FUTURE PEOPLE

2002 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.M. Kamm
Keyword(s):  
Human Population ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Germ Line ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future People ◽  
Norman Daniels ◽  
Genetic Makeup

In this essay, I shall discuss ethical issues that arise with our increasing ability to affect the genetic makeup of the human population. These effects can be produced directly by altering the genotype (through germ-line or somatic changes), or indirectly by aborting, not conceiving, or treating individuals because of their genetic makeup in ways made possible by genetic pharmacology. I shall refer to all of these sorts of procedures collectively as the Procedures. Some of the ethical issues the Procedures raise are old, arising quite generally when we can affect the well-being of people, even in the absence of the ability to affect them in the ways just described. My examination of these issues is prompted by the recent at-length discussion of them, From Chance to Choice (henceforth CC), by Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler.

scholarly journals CHALLENGES IN CONTEMPORARY HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A VIEW FROM THE OUTSIDE

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wija Oortwijn ◽  
Gert Jan van der Wilt
Keyword(s):  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Healthcare Policy ◽  
Economic Modeling ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Norman Daniels

The Special Interest Group on Ethics and HTA (health technology assessment) has invited two renowned philosophers, Norman Daniels from Harvard University and Henry Richardson from Georgetown University to reflect on the role of HTA in healthcare policy making. Both acknowledge its importance, but at the same time warn against a too mechanistic deployment of HTA. In their view, the relevance of HTA to healthcare policy making would considerably be enhanced if it were subsumed within a broader deliberative framework. Why should this be so? What is there to deliberate on, who should do the deliberating, where and when, and how does this relate to the more technical elements of HTA such as evidence synthesis and economic modeling?

scholarly journals EQUILÍBRIO REFLEXIVO NA BIOÉTICA

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Darlei Dall'Agnol
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Norman Daniels

O presente artigo discute as diferentes aplicações do método de justificação conhecido como 'equilíbrio reflexivo' na bioética. Na primeira parte, reconstrói-se a caracterização do método feita por Rawls em "A Theory of Justice", a distinção posterior entre "Equilíbrio Reflexivo Estrito" e "Equilíbrio Reflexivo Amplo" e, finalmente, algumas aplicações do próprio Rawls na discussão da eugenia e aborto. Na segunda parte, discute-se as extensões feitas por Norman Daniels da teoria da justiça de Rawls, suas aplicações do método e suas próprias contribuições para a bioética, principalmente para a construção de um sistema de saúde justo. Na terceira parte, aborda-se a adoção do método pelos principialistas Beauchamp e Childress. Na parte conclusiva, algumas críticas feitas ao método são avaliadas a partir das aplicações feitas à questões de bioética.

scholarly journals 導言

2007 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Jonathan CHAN
Keyword(s):  
Alasdair Macintyre ◽  
Norman Daniels ◽  
Digital Commons

LANGUAGE NOTE | Document text in Chinese生命倫理學深受英美的道德哲學（尤其是自由主義）的影響，這是無庸置疑的事實。大部分當代生命倫理學的著作都是從自由主義的道德前提出發來論証關於生命倫理課題的結論。然而必須提出的問題是，從事生命倫理學的探究是否必須從自由主義的道德前提出發？Norman Daniels 等生命倫理學家在其近作From Chance to Choice: Genetics & Justice 一書的一篇附錄裏指出，自由主義的道德架構是目前得到最佳表述和辯護的道德思想架構，其言下之意是理所當然地我們應從此一架構的道德前提出發從事生命倫理學的探究。然而， 倘若我們接受著名道德哲學家Alasdair Macintyre 對道德探究的看法，我們就不會同意Daniels 等人的看法。Macintyre 認為自由主義只是眾多的道德傳統之一，他在Whose Justice? Which Rationality?一書里指出並沒有跨越不同傳統的理性標準可用以支持自由主義具有普遍的合理性。相反，他認為不同傳統本身就其備了它的合理性。DOWNLOAD HISTORY | This article has been downloaded 19 times in Digital Commons before migrating into this platform.

Modelli deliberativi per l’allocazione delle risorse in sanità: il caso della dengue in Tanzania

2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-335
Author(s):  
Elena Mancini ◽  
Roberta Martina Zagarella
Keyword(s):  
Accountability For Reasonableness ◽  
Norman Daniels

Nei piani di intervento a sostegno dei sistemi sanitari dei paesi in via di sviluppo, l’utilizzo prevalente di approcci tecnici (basati su strumenti economici) ha rappresentato la via maestra per l’individuazione delle priorità sanitarie. Tali approcci mostrano tuttavia il limite, sotto il profilo etico, di non includere un’analisi dei valori e del contesto culturale e di essere scarsamente responsivi nei confronti delle reali domande di salute della popolazione. Nascondono, inoltre, un sostanziale conflitto tra i valori sottesi, quali l’efficienza e l’equità. La nostra analisi si rivolge ai modelli partecipati e deliberativi di allocazione delle risorse, e specialmente all’approccio elaborato da Norman Daniels – che prende il nome di Accountability for Reasonableness (A4R) – con l’intento di proporre un metodo finalizzato alla definizione di priorità “giuste”, definite cioè non in base a predefinite scelte di valori bensì derivanti da una procedura deliberativa legittima (trasparente e negoziata tra tutti i portatori di interessi in gioco). Per testare l’applicabilità in circostanze reali (soprattutto per paesi a basso reddito) del modello A4R, l’articolo propone l’analisi dello studio di un caso. In particolare, viene esaminata una concreta applicazione dell’A4R relativa alla prioritarizzazione degli interventi di contrasto alla Dengue in Tanzania, al fine di mostrare cosa ha funzionato in questa circostanza specifica, quali difficoltà si sono incontrate e quali reazioni sono scaturite da parte della popolazione.

Genetic Intervention and the New Frontiers of Justice

Dialogue ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-154
Author(s):  
Colin Farrelly
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Research ◽  
Genetic Enhancement ◽  
Individual Choice ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Genetic Intervention ◽  
Norman Daniels ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
Genetic Interventions ◽  
The One

Recent advances in genetic research pose many complex problems for moral and political philosophers. On the one hand, these advances promise great things. Genetic enhancement techniques might allow us to prevent or cure a variety of debilitating diseases. But on the other hand, talk about intervening in people's genetic make-up conjures up memories of the sinister episodes of past eugenic movements. Such movements violated the most basic principles of justice. How can society capitalize on the benefits of genetic intervention and yet avoid the injustices of past eugenic movements? What basic moral principles should guide public policy and individual choice concerning the use of genetic interventions? These important questions are tackled by Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels, and Daniel Wikler in From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. This book brings together the thoughts of leading scholars in the field and is likely to set the agenda for serious debate on this topic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document