Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us. A Response to My Critics
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The article provides answers to comments in this journal on my recent book, Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us (Oxford University Press, 2019). Did I address all of the relevant theories? Yes, I did. Was my argument underdeveloped in any respects? Yes, at least in one as I should perhaps have discussed contractual ethical thinking more carefully. I do so in this response. Moreover, the critical comments raised have helped me to clarify my argument in many ways, for which I thank my critics.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
References
Arrhenius G. (2000), “An Impossibility Theorem for Welfarist Axiology,” Economics and Philosophy 16 (2): 247–266.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000249
Buchanan J.M. (1975), The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Casal P. (2007), “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics 117 (2): 296-327.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/510692
Crisp R. (2003), “Equality, priority, and compassion,” Ethics 113 (4): 745–763.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/373954
Gauthier D. (1986), Morals By Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198249926.001.0001
Gibson Q. H. (2020), “Rawlsian Contractualism and Healthcare Allocation: A Response to Torbjörn Tännsjö,” Diametros 18 (68): 9–23.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1682
Goodin R. E. (2020), “Setting Health-Care Priorities: A Reply to Tännsjö,” Diametros 18 (68): 24–32.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1597
Herlitz A. (2020), “Review of Torbjörn Tännsjö, Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Economics and Philosophy 36 (3): 460–465.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267120000140
Manninen B. A. (2014), “A Kantian Defense of Abortion Rights with Respect for Intrauterine Life,” Diametros 39: 70–92.
Nielsen L. (2021), “Defending Deontic Constraints and Prioritarianism: Two Remarks on Tännsjö’s Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Diametros 18 (68): 33–45.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1673
Parfi t, D. (2004) “Postscript,” [in:] The Repugnant Conclusion. Essays on Population Ethics, J. Ryberg and T. Tä nnsjö (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht: 257.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2473-3_14
Scanlon T.M. (1998), What We Owe to Each Other, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)/ London.
Tännsjö T. (1998), Hedonistic Utilitarianism. A Defence, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Tännsjö T. (2015), Taking Life. Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190225575.001.0001
Tännsjö T. (2019), Setting Health-Care Priorities. What Ethical Theories Tell Us, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190946883.001.0001
Zameska J. (2020), “The Sufficientarian Alternative: A Commentary on Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Diametros 18 (68): 46–59.
Zuber S. et al. (2021), “What Should We Agree on about the Repugnant Conclusion,” Utilitas, published online: 13 April 2021 doi:10.1017/S095382082100011X.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095382082100011X