| Autor: |
Engelhardt, H. Tristram, Spicker, Stuart F., Agich, George J., Erde, Edmund, King, Patricia A., Morreim, E. Haavi, Wildes, Kevin W., Bole, Thomas J., Bondeson, William B., Khushf, George P. |
| Zdroj: |
Rights to Health Care; 1991, p355-374, 20p |
| Abstrakt: |
Baruch Brody has argued that rights language is not needed to justify a health care program and it is not helpful in addressing the crucial questions of what type and how much health care should be provided ([5]; see also [31], p. 149; [26], p. 210). Since the primary function of the debate on the right to health care is to address public policy concerns, Brody concludes that rights language does not serve its primary function and it should be abandoned in favor of a more fruitful language ([5], p. 113). In this essay I accept Brody's contention that rights language has not proven very helpful in the past.1 But I believe this fact is only accidental and not inherent in rights language. In fact I think that rights language is especially useful because it allows us to appreciate the complex interaction of moral and nonmoral concerns that are involved in deliberations on public policy. The purpose of this essay is to develop rights language in a way that makes its relevance clear. I do this by placing the debate on the right to health care in the broad context of the justification of public policy and the nature of the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Supplemental Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
