Daniels argues that equal opportunity in health care is relative to how one views "justice" in health care and the question of justice in health care poses other questions like - should health care be viewed as a commodity like owning a TV or automobile, or should it be categorized separately and viewed as "special"?
For me, the author's most interesting argument was the one most developed, the normal opportunity range as a consideration for health care differences. Daniels asks us to take into account people's life plans and how their health might contribute to their success or lack. This is ultimately (according to Daniels) is how health care should be judged, if it is fair or equal really depends on whether or not it allows individuals the opportunity to reach their life plans without being hampered by illness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The normal opportunity range is functional if it not a judgement but it sounds to me like it is. I want to know if its final or flexible. What if I think my health should be this way and my doctor thinks it is fine as it is? Normal opportunity says I should not be hampered by illness if there is in fact a cure but what does that really mean? If I screw up this liver can I have another? What if there is not enough of the cure to go around? How does one choose?
ReplyDelete