Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A response to Torbjörn Tännsjö

Main Article Content

Quinn Hiroshi Gibson
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9584-7049

Abstract

The consideration of the problem of healthcare allocation as a special case of distributive justice is especially alluring when we only consider consequentialist theories. I articulate here an alternative Rawlsian non-consequentialist theory which prioritizes the fairness of healthcare allocation procedures rather than directly setting distributive parameters. The theory in question stems from Rawlsian commitments that, it is argued, have a better Rawlsian pedigree than those considered as such by Tännsjö. The alternative framework is worthy of consideration on its own merits, but it also casts light on two related difficulties with Tännsjö’s approach: (i) the limits of his supposedly ecumenical methodology, which is revealed to be dialectically suspect and (ii) issues with the type of abstraction and idealization from actual judgements and preferences which the approach requires.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Gibson, Quinn Hiroshi. 2021. “Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A Response to Torbjörn Tännsjö”. Diametros 18 (68):9-23. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1682.
Section
Articles
Share |

References

Cohen G.A. (1997), “Where the Action is: On the Site of Distributive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1): 3-30.
View in Google Scholar

Cohen G.A. (2003), “Facts and Principles,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3): 211-245.
View in Google Scholar

Cohen G.A. (2008), Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
View in Google Scholar

Daniels N. (2001), “Justice, Health, and Healthcare,” American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2): 2-16.
View in Google Scholar

Goodin R. (2020), “Setting Health-Care Priorities: A Reply to Tännsjö,” Diametros, September: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1597
View in Google Scholar

Miller D. (2013), “Political philosophy for Earthlings,” [in:] D. Miller, Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
View in Google Scholar

Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice (1st edition), Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
View in Google Scholar

Rescher N. (1969), “The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy,” Ethics 79 (3): 173-186.
View in Google Scholar

Roebyns I. (2008), “Ideal Theory in Theory and Practice,” Social Theory and Practice 34 (3): 341-362.
View in Google Scholar

Sen A. (2006), “What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?,” Journal of Philosophy 103: 215–38.
View in Google Scholar

Singer P. (2009), “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” New York Times Magazine. URL = https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html [Accessed 27.12.21].
View in Google Scholar

Stemplowska Z. (2008), “What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory?,” Social Theory and Practice 34 (3): 319-340.
View in Google Scholar

Stemplowska Z., Swift A. (2012), “Ideal and Nonideal Theory,” [in:] The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, D. Estlund (ed.), Oxford University Press: 373-389.
View in Google Scholar

Tännsjö T. (2019), Setting Health-Care Priorities: What Ethical Theories Tell Us, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
View in Google Scholar